Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Rural Utilities Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Management and Budget Office
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Minerals Management Service
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Management and Budget Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
General Accounting Office.
Final rule.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) is removing regulations which relate to the settlement of claims, settlement of accounts of deceased and incompetent individuals, transportation transactions, and waiver of claims for erroneous payments. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1996 transferred these functions to the executive branch, but these regulations were kept for a transition period. This final rule eliminates these regulations as unnecessary because the functions are no longer carried out by GAO but have been transferred to other federal agencies.
Effective May 25, 2000.
Barry L. Shillito, 202-512-4663; shillitob.ogc@gao.gov.
In Subchapter C (Claims; General), Parts 30-36 set out the Comptroller General's regulations for the settlement of (1) claims and (2) accounts of certain deceased and incompetent individuals. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law 104-53, sec. 211(a), 109 Stat. 514, 535 (1996), transferred certain of the Comptroller General's authority to settle claims and accounts to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and provided for the Director of OMB to delegate this authority to other appropriate agencies. The Director of OMB delegated his authority to several executive branch agencies. Subsequently, the General Accounting Office Act of 1996, Public Law 104-316, 110 Stat. 3826 (1996), set out in detail, among other things, the authority given to the Director of OMB and other heads of agencies to settle the claims and accounts formerly subject to settlement by the Comptroller General. Section 202(n) of the GAO Act of 1996 made a conforming amendment to 31 U.S.C. 732 to set out the executive branch agencies to whom the Director of OMB delegated the authority to settle claims formerly within the authority of the Comptroller General. Additionally, section 103(c) of the GAO Act of 1996 transferred the Comptroller General's authority to promulgate regulations with respect to the designation of beneficiaries for certain deceased and incompetent persons to various specified officials in the three branches of government.
The Director of OMB delegated to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the authority to settle claims against the United States involving Federal employee compensation and leave, deceased employees' compensation, and proceeds of canceled checks payable to deceased beneficiaries. Individuals with these types of claims should no longer contact GAO but should contact OPM.
The Director of OMB delegated to the Administrator of General Services the authority to settle claims involving expenses incurred by Federal civilian employees for official travel and transportation and for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station. Individuals with these type of claims should no longer contact GAO but should contact the General Services Administration.
OMB delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to settle claims for military pay, allowances, travel, transportation, retired pay, and survivor benefits as well as claims by transportation carriers involving amounts collected from them for loss or damage incurred to property incident to shipment at Government expense. Individuals with these types of claims should no longer contact GAO but should contact the Department of Defense.
Accordingly, the Comptroller General no longer has the authority to prescribe the regulations in 4 CFR parts 30-32, regarding claims settlement, and parts 33-36, regarding settlement of accounts for certain deceased and incompetent persons.
Sections 125 and 127(d) of the GAO Act of 1996, transferred the Comptroller General's authority to promulgate regulations for transportation transactions for use of U.S. flag carriers pursuant to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 46 U.S.C. 1241a, and the Fly America Act, 49 U.S.C. 40118(c), to the Administrator of General Services. Accordingly, the Comptroller General no longer has authority to prescribe the regulations found at 4 CFR part 52. With the removal of part 52, there is no further need for 4 CFR part 51.
Section 202(o)(2) of the GAO Act of 1996 transferred the Comptroller General's authority to promulgate regulations governing the review of GSA transportation settlement actions pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3726(g)(1) to the Administrator of General Services. Accordingly the Comptroller General no longer has authority to prescribe the regulations found at 4 CFR part 53.
Section 202(o)(1) of the GAO Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3826, 3844 (1996), removed the Comptroller General's authority to jointly prescribe standards, with the Secretary of Treasury, for advance payment of charges for transportation services pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3726(f). Accordingly, the Comptroller General no longer has authority to prescribe the regulations found at 4 CFR part 56.
Given the above discussion, there is no long current need for a subchapter devoted to transportation (Subchapter D).
Sections 103 of the GAO Act of 1996 transferred the Comptroller General's authority to waive claims against civilian employees arising out of erroneous payments of pay and allowances, travel, transportation and relocation benefits to the head of an agency with respect to a legislative branch employee, or to the Director of OMB with respect to any other agency or employee. Further, the Comptroller General's authority over such claims against members of the military and the National Guard was transferred to the Director of OMB by sections 105(b) and 116 of the GAO Act of 1996. The Director of OMB has delegated his authority to the head of the agency that
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble and under the authority of Public Law 104-53, sec. 211(a), 109 Stat. 535, and secs. 103(c), 103(d), 105(b), 116, 125, and 127 of Public Law 104-316, 110 Stat. 3826, GAO amends 4 CFR Chapter I as follows:
1. Subchapter C, consisting of parts 30 through 36, Subchapter D, consisting of parts 51 through 53 and part 56, and Subchapter G, consisting of parts 91 through 93, are removed and reserved.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is amending its regulations governing career and limited appointments to the Senior Executive Services (SES). The amended regulations emphasize the importance of executive leadership qualifications in agency SES selection criteria, strengthen merit principles, and increase SES staffing flexibilities to help agencies recruit the brightest and most diverse executive cadre possible.
June 26, 2000.
Daliza Salas (202-606-1274, email desalas@opm.gov) or Marcia Staten (202-606-1832, email mkstaten@opm.gov).
The success of the Senior Executive Service (SES) rests on the ability of agencies to employ highly competent, motivated, and diverse professionals dedicated to public service who have the requisite leadership expertise to meet the challenges facing the Government and the Nation now and into the future.
The final regulations and accompanying guidance to agencies are an outcome of extensive discussions with stakeholders about improving the SES. These discussions challenged stakeholders to think about the future and whether the way we develop, select, and manage the SES cadre produces the kind of executives the Government needs to meet the leadership challenges of the 21st century. Although stakeholder views varied widely, there was consensus on many ideas, including increasing agency flexibilities for SES staffing. Specifically, there was general support for improving the SES selection process to ensure that leadership and executive qualifications are the major selection criteria, reducing the paperwork burden on applicants and agencies, considering options for delegating QRB administration, and increasing agency authority to make limited terms appointments.
On July 30, 1999, OPM published a proposed rule in the
In addition to these regulatory changes, we have modified internal procedures and other requirements to streamline the SES application process, reduce paperwork requirements, and improve the QRB certification process. These modifications provide alternative methods for documenting executive qualifications for presentation to QRBs and improved guidance and instructions to QRBs to ensure that members fully understand their role and responsibilities. We have also suggested ways for agencies to improve their recruitment and selection procedures. OPM's administrative modifications and the suggested changes at the agency level will help agencies and candidates focus on substance rather than process and format, and they reinforce the goal of achieving a highly-qualified, diverse SES corps. We have summarized these procedural modifications and flexibilities in supplemental guidance to agencies.
The key characteristic of an SES position is executive leadership, and therefore selection criteria should focus primarily on leadership qualifications. Further, the law at 5 U.S.C. 3393 requires agency Executive Resources Boards to conduct the merit staffing process for career entry into the SES, including reviewing the executive qualifications of each career SES candidate.
During discussions on improving the SES, stakeholders confirmed that, in many agencies, the selection criteria focuses mainly on candidates' professional or technical qualifications, and therefore consideration of executive qualifications is not getting the full attention intended by the SES legislation. To strengthen that focus and encourage agencies to fully integrate consideration of executive leadership qualifications into their selection processes, the proposed regulations amended the current provisions to incorporate the statutory requirements.
Most commenters supported the proposal. One agency felt there was not pressing need to revise the current wording, as what constitutes SES qualifications changes over time with new studies and emerging approaches and theories. We do not agree, given that the statute requires selection based on executive qualifications and our findings that many agencies are not considering executive expertise in their SES selections. An August 1999 survey of SES members reinforces these findings. Only 56 percent of the senior executives responding to the survey said that their agencies strongly emphasize executive qualifications in evaluating applications and use them as key factor in determining who is selected for the SES. Further, our research tells us that the emphasis on executive skills and expertise is even more critical than in the past and will continue to be of primary importance in the future. The survey findings supported this as well. When asked to rank qualifications for SES positions now and in five years, respondents rated executive qualifications as more important than technical qualifications today and even more important in five years.
One agency, while not opposing the proposal, was concerned that it might lead to overly prescriptive procedural requirements. This is not our intent. Agencies will continue to have the latitude to design merit staffing processes to meet their unique mission requirements, within the framework of
One agency objected to the requirement that the appointing authority certify the candidate's executive and technical qualifications. The certification requirement is not new—it is included in current regulations at § 317.502(b). The same agency recommended adding a statement that the appointing authority can approve the appointment of a candidate who does not meet the executive qualifications but has special or unique qualities that indicate a likelihood of executive success. Selection of a candidate on this basis is already provided in statute (5 U.S.C. 3393(c)(2)) and current regulations (§ 317.502(c)).
Two professional organizations recommended that we require equal consideration of executive and technical qualifications to ensure that technical qualifications are not favored over executive qualifications. Since the statute does not make this specification, we have not adopted the recommendation. Further, “equal consideration” would indicate that technical qualifications should carry the same weight in SES selections, which is not the case. Executive qualifications should be the primary factor. The final regulations concerning executive qualifications are adopted as proposed in order to reinforce the primacy of executive expertise and encourage agencies to fully integrate consideration of executive leadership qualifications into their selection processes.
Three professional organizations recommended additional language to emphasize that recruitment and selection for initial SES career appointments should be achieved from the brightest and most diverse executive cadre possible. We have added language to the final regulations that stresses the importance of reaching out to women, minorities, and people with disabilities in SES recruitment and selection. We have also addressed this in the supplemental guidance to agencies on the staffing flexibilities and procedural modifications.
During stakeholder discussions on improving the SES, several agencies recommended delegating QRB administration to agencies to give them more flexibility to manage their executive resources. Some were critical of the paperwork and procedures connected with QRB certification and felt that agencies could make process improvements if the authority were delegated. OPM agreed to consider the recommendation, incorporated it into the proposed regulations, and formally asked for stakeholder views. The proposed regulatory changes provided for delegation of QRB administration to agencies, on an agency-by-agency basis via individual delegation agreements, provided that the focus on leadership and executive expertise would be maintained and merit system principles would be preserved.
Two-thirds of those commenting on the proposal either supported or voiced no objections to the proposal. However, very few indicated an interest in pursuing a delegation agreement. Supporters favored the increased flexibility to manage and be held accountable for the SES appointment process. Another commented that agencies have long records of merit-based selections of individuals with well-demonstrated SES qualifications.
A few supporters had some reservations. One stated that delegation might create undue pressure on QRB members to certify candidates. Another commented that fairness might be jeopardized under delegation and politicization heightened. A third commenter said that more benefit could be obtained through streamlining paperwork requirements than through QRB delegation.
One agency, three professional organizations, and four individuals strongly opposed the proposal. Key reasons given were serious concerns about the ability of agencies to guarantee an independent peer review, the potential for abuse of the merit staffing process and politicization of the career SES, and the possible adverse impact on efforts to increase the diversity of the SES cadre. In addition, one professional organization questioned OPM's authority to delegate QRB administration. Regarding this issue, we have determined that OPM's broad statutory authority at 5 U.S.C. 1104 for delegating personnel management functions permits the delegation of QRB administration.
Although more respondents supported the proposal than opposed it, the arguments against delegation were substantive and persuasive. The concerns about preserving the independence of QRB certification and the perceived potential for politicization of the career appointment process expressed by those opposed to the proposal outweighed comments in favor of delegation. Since the supporters did not offer compelling reasons for proceeding with the proposal, the final regulations do not include the proposed amendment to § 317.502 regarding QRB delegation.
We will strengthen efforts to encourage senior executives from diverse backgrounds to serve as QRB members to ensure that the boards are representative of the Nation's diversity. In addition, we have modified the procedures and streamlined paperwork associated with QRB administration to address concerns that the process focuses on paper over substance and to provide more specific and detailed feedback to agencies on QRB disapprovals.
The current regulation at § 317.502(e) precludes QRB certification of a noncareer SES employee for career appointment in the employee's current position or a successor to that position, because there is no bona-fide vacancy for which to hold competition. This regulation was intended to preserve the merit principle of fair and open competition in merit selections. Since the regulation was promulgated, however, questions have arisen about the definition of “noncareer SES employee.” The proposed regulation strengthens and clarifies the intent of the current regulation by expanding coverage to noncareer-type employees, including noncareer SES appointees and Schedule C appointees, or the equivalent. This generally refers to individuals in or from positions of a confidential, policy-determining, or policy-advocating nature.
Commenters concurred with the proposed revision. One agency recommended adding certain limited appointees to those considered to be noncareer-type employees. These would be limited appointees not appointed under an agency's delegated authority at § 317.601(c)(1), which restricts use of the authority to individuals with career or career-conditional appointments. Since limited appointees, regardless of the method of appointment, are not considered noncareer-type employees within the meaning intended by this provision, we are not adopting the recommendation.
One agency recommended that we delete “or equivalent” and restrict coverage to noncareer SES and Schedule C appointees only. We believe the additional language is needed to cover other categories that might meet the intent of the provision, so we have not adopted this recommendation. The final regulations are adopted as proposed.
The proposal made two changes to the regulations governing the SES
There was overall support for the proposals. One agency, while supporting the concepts, opposed placing the provisions in regulation. The agency felt that agencies should be trusted to manage their own executive resources effectively under their own administrative authority. Another supported the concepts, but said that the means should be left to each agency. Another agency opposed the provision, stating that performance issues can be addressed through the performance management system. While these views have merit, most stakeholders indicated that something more is needed to reinforce the importance of paying attention to performance during probation.
One professional organization recommended requiring training in succession planning and diversity leadership during probation. These are important issues, and we are using other venues to bring their importance to that attention of agency leadership and human resources directors. The training needs of individual appointees vary widely. While some may need training in succession planning or diversity leadership, there are other equally critical areas where training might be necessary, such as managing information technology or measuring business results. Agencies should have the flexibility to assess these needs and determine how to address them.
Two agencies recommended that the appointing authority be allowed to delegate the certification responsibility, and we agree. The final regulations provide that the appointing authority, or his or her designee, must certify that the appointee performed at the level of excellence expected of a senior executive during the probationary period.
The proposed regulations would increase the pool of limited appointment authorities currently available to agencies from 2 percent to 3 percent of their total SES allocation. Use of this pool authority is restricted to appointments of individuals with career or career-type appointments outside the SES.
Most commenters supported this provision. One agency recommended that the pool be increased to 5 percent. One professional organization opposed the provision, stating that it would encourage and facilitate more temporary SES appointments and would jeopardize OPM's traditional oversight role. However, Congress intended that a number of appointments in the SES be temporary, and set a maximum of 5 percent of the Governmentwide SES allocation to prevent excessive use of the authority. Since the SES was established in 1978, no more than 2.5 percent have been limited appointees, well within the congressional limit. Increasing the agency pool authority by 1 percent gives agencies some additional flexibility, while giving OPM enough reserves to address other limited appointment needs that cannot be met with the agencies' delegated authority. The final rule adopts the amendment as proposed.
In exercising this delegated authority, agencies must continue to comply with all other statutory and regulatory provisions affecting limited appointments,
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with E.O. 12866.
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulations pertain only to Federal employees and agencies.
Government employees.
5 U.S.C. 3392, 3393, 3393a, 3395, 3397, 3593 and 3596.
(c) * * *
(2) Provide that the ERB consider the executive and technical qualifications of each candidate, other than those found ineligible because they do not meet the requirements of the vacancy announcement. * * *
(6) Provide that the appointing authority select from among the candidates identified as best qualified by the ERB and certify the candidate's executive and technical qualifications.
(e) An action to convert a “noncareer-type” employee to a career SES appointment in the employee's current position or a successor to that position will not be forwarded to a QRB. A “noncareer-type” employee includes a noncareer SES appointee, a Schedule C appointee, or equivalent.
(a) An individual's initial appointment as an SES career appointee
(b) When a career appointee's executive qualification have been certified by a Qualifications Review Board on the basis of special or unique qualities, as described in § 317.502(c), the probationary assessment must address any executive development activities the agency identified in support of the request for QRB certification.
(f) * * * The individual, however, need not be recertified by a QRB unless the individual was removed for performance or disciplinary reasons.
(c) * * *
(1) Agencies are provided a pool of limited appointment authorities equal to 3 percent of their Senior Executive Service (SES) position allocation, or one authority, whichever is greater. * * *
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the noxious weeds regulations by adding
June 26, 2000.
Ms. Polly Lehtonen, Botanist, Permits and Risk Assessment, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8896.
The noxious weed regulations were promulgated under authority of the Federal Noxious Weed Act (FNWA) of 1974, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2801
Under the authority of the Federal Seed Act (FSA) of 1939, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1551
On December 27, 1999, we published in the
We held a public hearing on the proposed rule on February 1, 2000. No one came to speak about the proposed rule. We also solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending February 25, 2000. We received one comment by that date. The comment was from a representative of a foreign government. We carefully considered the comment, and have discussed its concerns below.
Prolific seed production is only one indicator of high dispersal or spread potential. At least one species of the genus
Further, our review of the scientific literature has revealed that species of the genus
In the absence of any data regarding imported species of the genus
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set forth below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities.
In accordance with the FNWA, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate regulations to prevent the movement of any noxious weed into the United States, or interstate, except under conditions prescribed by the Secretary.
This rule will add
As stated above,
Since imported Australian oats are likely to be used as a feed for horses and other livestock, it is likely that the
• Poison livestock and/or humans. Livestock may die within 12 hours or less after ingesting the leaves.
• Reproduce and persist in prolific fashion, thus crowding out desirable plants and competing with them for soil nutrients, reducing the carrying capacity of pastures and reducing crop yields.
Historical data show that, in the 1980's in South Africa, poisoning from
The unchecked spread of
We are aware that there are persons in the nursery trade who import and distribute
We believe that adding
We considered two alternatives to this rule. One alternative was to make no changes in the regulations;
This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Imports, Plants (Agriculture), Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Weeds.
Agricultural commodities, Imports, Labeling, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seeds, Vegetables, Weeds.
7 U.S.C. 2803 and 2809; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
7 U.S.C. 1581-1610; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice of effective date.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) published a final rule under part 614 on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24101). This final rule deletes requirements for a Farm Credit System (Farm Credit or System) institution to provide notice to or seek consent from other System institutions when it buys participation interests in loans originated outside its chartered territory. Repealing these notice and consent requirements can help increase the flow and availability of agricultural credit and help diversify geographic and industry concentrations in the loan portfolios of Farm Credit banks and associations. As a result of this rule, a Farm Credit bank or association will no longer need approval from other System institutions when it buys participations in loans from non-System lenders. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the
The regulation amending 12 CFR part 614 published on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24101) is effective May 25, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to Eurocopter France Model SE.3160, SA.316B, SA.316C, SA.319B, SA330F, SA330G, SA330J, SA341G, and SA342J helicopters. This AD requires inspecting each inflation head and union nut on certain emergency flotation gear nitrogen cylinders and replacing each cracked inflation head with an airworthy inflation head. This amendment is prompted by the discovery of cracked inflation heads during routine maintenance inspections of emergency flotation systems. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent an emergency flotation gear nitrogen cylinder from exploding with resultant high velocity shrapnel, which could cause airframe damage or personal injury and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Effective June 29, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 29, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone (972) 641-3460, fax (972) 641-3527. This information may be examined at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Robert McCallister, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5121, fax (817) 222-5961.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that applies to Eurocopter France Model SE.3160, SA.316B, SA.316C, SA.319B, SA330F, SA330G, SA330J, SA341G, and SA342J helicopters was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial changes.
The FAA estimates that 114 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 4 work hours per helicopter to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $2,138 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $271,092.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent an emergency flotation gear nitrogen cylinder from exploding with resultant high velocity shrapnel, which could cause airframe damage or personal injury and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) For Model SE.3160, SA.316B, SA.316C, SA.319B, SA330F, SA330G, or SA330J helicopters,
(1) At the next scheduled emergency flotation gear maintenance inspection or 400 hours time-in-service (TIS), whichever occurs first, accomplish the following:
(i) Discharge each emergency flotation gear nitrogen cylinder (cylinder) in accordance with the “Discharge Procedure for the 74921G Cylinder” in Eurocopter France Service Bulletin 05.66, Revision 3, dated May 4, 1998 or Eurocopter France Service Bulletin 05.58, Revision 3, dated May 4, 1998.
(ii) Remove the inflation head and degrease the assembly.
(iii) Perform a dye penetrant inspection of each inflation head and union nut on each emergency flotation gear nitrogen cylinder.
(2) Thereafter, conduct a dye penetrant inspection of each inflation head and union nut on each cylinder at each scheduled emergency flotation gear maintenance inspection or at intervals of not more than 400 hours TIS, whichever occurs first.
(b) For Model SA341G or SA342J helicopters,
(1) At the next scheduled emergency flotation gear maintenance inspection or 520 hours time-in-service, whichever occurs first, accomplish the following:
(i) Discharge each emergency flotation gear nitrogen cylinder in accordance with the “Discharge Procedure for the 74921G Cylinder” in Eurocopter France Service Bulletin 05.19, Revision 3, dated May 4, 1998.
(ii) Remove the inflation head and degrease the assembly.
(iii) Perform a dye penetrant inspection of each inflation head and union nut on each cylinder.
(2) Thereafter, conduct a dye penetrant inspection of each inflation head and union nut on each cylinder at each scheduled emergency flotation gear maintenance inspection or at intervals of not more than 520 hours TIS, whichever occurs first.
(c) Before further flight, replace each cracked inflation head, P/N 74929, with an airworthy inflation head having S/N 12000 or higher.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Regulations Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Regulations Group.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Regulations Group.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) The discharge of each cylinder shall be done in accordance with the “Discharge Procedure for the 74921G Cylinder” in Eurocopter France Service Bulletin 05.66, Revision 3, dated May 4, 1998; Eurocopter France Service Bulletin 05.58, Revision 3, dated May 4, 1998; or Eurocopter France Service Bulletin 05.19, Revision 3, dated May 4, 1998. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone (972) 641-3460, fax (972) 641-3527. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on June 29, 2000.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile AD's 80-062-041(A) R2, 80-063-030(A) R2, and 80-061-028(A) R2, all dated July 15, 1998.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment revises Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99-15-04, which currently requires you to calibrate, inspect, and repair or replace portions of the turbine inlet temperature system on all The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (New Piper) Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P airplanes (different actions for different airplane models). Information reveals that the AD should not apply to airplanes where the factory installed turbine inlet temperature gauge and associated probe have been replaced through supplemental type certificate (STC). This AD retains the actions of AD 99-15-04, and restricts the applicability accordingly. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent improper engine operation caused by improperly calibrated turbine inlet temperature indicators or defective turbine inlet temperature probes, which could result in engine damage/failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective on July 28, 2000.
You may examine information related to this AD at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 98-CE-112-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Mr. Donald J. Young, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone: (770) 703-6079; facsimile: (770) 703-6097; e-mail address: “Donald.Young@faa.gov”.
1. Calibrate the turbine inlet temperature system to assure the accuracy of the existing turbine inlet temperature indicator and wiring on all airplanes;
2. Repair or replace any turbine inlet temperature system that fails the calibration test on all airplanes;
3. Repetitively replace the turbine inlet temperature probe on the Model PA-46-350P airplanes; and
4. Insert a copy of the AD into the Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) of certain airplanes.
Since issuing AD 99-15-04, we have received information to show that the AD should not apply on airplanes where the factory installed turbine inlet temperature gauge and associated probe were replaced through supplemental type certificate (STC).
To address this issue, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise AD 99-15-04. This NPRM was published in the
We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.
We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.
We estimate 1 workhour per airplane to accomplish the initial turbine inlet temperature probe replacement at an average labor rate of $60 an hour. Parts cost approximately $518. We estimate the cost impact of the replacement on U.S. operators at $335,240, or $578 per airplane.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this action: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules. We have placed a copy of the final regulatory evaluation prepared for this action in the Rules Docket. You may obtain a copy of it at the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a)
(1) Certificated in any category; and
(2) Equipped with a Lewis or Transicoil Turbine Inlet Temperature Gauge and associated probe installed. Relief from the AD is available only if the gauge and probe are replaced through STC and not if a second turbine inlet temperature gauge was installed while retaining the Lewis or Transicoil gauge and probe.
(b)
(c)
(d) What must I do to address this problem? To address this problem, you must accomplish the following actions:
(1) For the Model PA-46-310P airplanes:
(2) For the Model PA-46-350P airplanes:
(3) Operators of the Model PA-46-350P airplanes with over 150 hours TIS on the currently installed turbine inlet temperature probe will have to replace the probe as required in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this AD. In this case, the operator may want to accomplish the replacement prior to the Turbine Inlet Temperature Gauge and Probe Cleaning and Inspection, and Turbine Inlet Temperature System Calibration.
(e)
(f)
(1) For operators of the Model PA-46-310P airplanes:
(2) For operators of the Model PA-46-350P airplanes:
(g)
(1) For Model PA-46-310P airplanes:
(i) If the turbine inlet temperature indication fails during takeoff, climb, descent, or landing, maintain FULL RICH mixture to assure adequate fuel flow for engine cooling.
(ii) If the turbine inlet temperature indication fails after cruise power has been set, maintain cruise power setting and lean to 6 gallons per hour (GPH) fuel flow above that specified in the Power Setting Table in Section 5 of the AFM/POH. Continually monitor engine cylinder head and oil temperatures to avoid exceeding temperature limits.
(2) For Model PA-46-350P airplanes:
(i) If the turbine inlet temperature indication fails during takeoff, climb, descent or landing, set power per the POH Section 5 Power Setting Table and then lean to the approximate POH Power Setting Table fuel flow plus 4 GPH.
(ii) If the turbine inlet temperature indication fails after cruise power has been set, maintain the power setting and increase indicated fuel flow by 1 GPH. Continually monitor engine cylinder head and oil temperatures to avoid exceeding temperature limits.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(1)(i) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent level of safety; and
(ii) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance with AD 99-15-04 are approved as alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph (a) of this AD, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific actions you propose to address it.
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises Class D Airspace at Alexandria England AFB, LA; revokes Class D Airspace at Alexandria Esler Regional Airport, LA; and revises Class E Airspace at Alexandria, LA.
The direct final rule published at 65 FR 15860 is effective 0901 UTC, August 10, 2000.
Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class D airspace area at Salisbury, MD. The commissioning of a new Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at the Salisbury-Ocean City, Wicomico Regional Airport (SBY) has made this proposal necessary. Controlled airspace extending upward from the surface to 2,500 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to accommodate Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations to the airport.
0901 UTC, 13 July 2000.
Mr. Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, Airspace Branch, AEA-520, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430, telephone: (718) 553-4521.
On June 7, 1999, a notice proposing to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class D airspace at Salisbury, MD was published in the
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83.
Class D airspace areas designations for airspace extending upward from the surface to a specified level are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9F, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) establishes Class D airspace at Salisbury, MD extending upward from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation it is certified that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to an including 2,500 feet MSL within a 6.6 mile radius of the Salisbury-Wicomico County Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport Facility Directory.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Waco, TX.
The direct final rule published at 65 FR 14856 is effective 0901 UTC, August 10, 2000.
Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Fort Stockton, TX.
The direct final rule published at 65 FR 14855 is effective 0901 UTC, August 10, 2000.
Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Englewood, CO, Class E airspace to accommodate the revision of a Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at the Centennial Airport, Englewood, CO.
0901 UTC, August 10, 2000.
Brian Durham, ANM-520.7, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 00-ANM-01, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98055-4056: telephone number: (425) 227-2527.
On January 24, 2000, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) by revising a Class E airspace extension at Englewood, CO, in order to accommodate a revised SIAP to the Centennial Airport, Englewood, CO. This amendment provides a small amount of additional Class E4 airspace at Englewood, CO, to meet current criteria standards associated with the SIAP. The FAA establishes Class E airspace where necessary to contain aircraft transitioning between the terminal and en route enivornments. The intended effect of this proposal is designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This rule promotes safe flight operations under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at the Centennial Airport and between the terminal and en route transition stages.
The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to a Class D airspace area, are published in paragraph 6004, of FAA
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) revise Class E airspace extension at Englewood, CO, in order to accommodate a revised SIAP to the Centennial Airport, Englewood, CO. This amendment provides a small amount of additional Class E4 airspace at Englewood, CO, to meet current criteria standards associated with the SIAP. The FAA establishes Class E airspace where necessary to contain aircraft transitioning between the terminal and en route environments. This rule is designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at the Centennial Airport and between the terminal and en route transition stages.
The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to a Class D airspace area, are published Paragraph 6004, of FAA Order 7400.9G dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.2-mile radius each side of the 178° bearing from the Centennial Airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 14.1 miles south of the airport, and within 2.1 miles each side of the 109° bearing from the Centennial Airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 5.5 miles southeast of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This document contains a correction to the final rule, published in the
This correction is effective December 1, 2000.
Kevin C. Willis, (202) 267-8741.
In final rule FR Doc. 00-7950, beginning on page 17736 in the
1. On page 17736, in column 1, in the heading section, beginning on line 4, correct “Amendment No. 93-80” to read “Amendment Nos. 91-263, 93-80, 121-274 and 135-75”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Policy statement.
This notice describes recent policy changes to the FAA's
This policy modification is effective May 25, 2000. Comments on this policy may be directed to the address below.
Send comments to Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591.
Mr. Lynn Jensen, International Liaison Staff, AFS-50, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591; (202) 267-3719.
The policy announced at 57 FR 38342, August 24, 1992, described how the FAA would assess whether a foreign civil aviation authority (CAA) complied with the minimum international standards for aviation safety oversight established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). In obtaining information relevant to its assessment, the FAA meets with the foreign CAA responsible for providing the safety oversight to its carriers, reviews pertinent records and meets with officials of the subject foreign air carriers. The FAA then analyzes the collected information to determine whether the CAA complies with ICAO standards regarding the oversight provided to the air carriers under its authority. This determination is part of the basis for FAA recommended courses of action to the Department of Transportation on the initiation, continuation, or expansion of air service to the United States by the carriers overseen by that CAA. The IASA program applies to all foreign countries with air carriers proposing or have existing air service to the United States under an economic authority issued by the Department
The policy announced at 59 FR 46332, September 8, 1994, concerned the FAA's decision to publicly disclose the results of FAA assessments. In connection with the public disclosure policy, the FAA established three categories of ratings for countries to signify the status of a CAA's compliance with minimum international safety standards: Category I (Acceptable), Category II (Conditional), and Category III (Unacceptable). Category II or III apply to countries whose CAAs are found not to be providing safety oversight in compliance with the minimum international standards established by ICAO. The FAA normally places a country in Category II if one of its carriers provided air service to the United States at the time of the FAA assessment. The FAA places a country in Category III if none of its carriers provided air service to the United States at the time of the FAA assessment. Carriers from Category II countries are permitted to maintain, but not expand, current levels of service under heightened FAA surveillance. Carriers from Category III countries are not permitted to commence service to the United States.
The FAA has a continuing obligation to ensure that CAAs comply with minimum international standards for safety oversight. In collecting information to support its assessment findings, the FAA will continue to rely, when necessary, on meetings with CAA and airline officials and reviewing pertinent documents. The FAA also will make use of other sources of information on CAA compliance with minimum international standards for safety oversight. These sources may include other qualified entities (e.g., the European Joint Aviation Authorities or ICAO) considered reliable by the FAA.
As in the past, assessment determinations will continue to be publicly disclosed. However, FAA will only use two categories in the future, i.e., Category 1 (in compliance with minimum international standards for aviation safety) and Category 2 (not in compliance with minimum international standards for aviation safety). This change is being made to eliminate any confusion that has resulted from having two different categories regarding non-compliance with ICAO standards. We believe that there has been a misimpression created that being in Category II reflects a higher degree of compliance with ICAO standards than being in Category III. To correct this misimpression and make clear that no inferences should be drawn about relative degrees of ICAO compliance, we are deleting Category III and redefining Category II as follows:
One group are countries that have air carriers with existing operations to the United States at the time of the assessment. While in Category 2 status, carriers from these countries will be permitted to continue operations at current levels under heightened FAA surveillance. Expansion or changes in services to the United States by such carriers are not permitted while in category 2, although new services will be permitted if operated using aircraft wet-leased from a duly authorized and properly supervised U.S. carrier or a foreign air carrier from a category 1 country that is authorized to serve the United States using its own aircraft.
The second group are countries that do not have air carriers with existing operations to the United States at the time of the assessment. Carriers from these countries will not be permitted to commerce service to the United States while in Category 2 status, although they may conduct services if operated using aircraft wet-leased from a duly authorized and properly supervised U.S. carrier or a foreign air carrier from a Category 1 country that is authorized to serve the United States with its own aircraft.
No other difference is made between these two groups of countries while in a category 2 status.
Countries in the former Category I will initially be placed in the new Category 1 (in compliance with ICAO Standards). Countries in the former Categories II and III will initially be placed in the new Category 2 (not in compliance with ICAO standards). For those countries not serving the U.S. at the time of the assessment, an asterisk “*” will be added to their Category 2 determination.
The FAA will review the category determinations of all countries included in the IASA categorization scheme at least once every two years, or when new information becomes available which calls into question the country's ability to continue complying with minimum standards for aviation safety. The purpose of such reviews is to determine if a country's CAA continues to comply with minimum international standard for aviation safety (Category I) or is making sustainable progress toward compliance (Category 2). After each such review, the FAA will update the appropriate public disclosure.
The FAA will continue to work with countries to improve safety oversight capabilities in cases where the assessment process has revealed deficiencies. When FAA determines that sustainable progress is not being made, or is not possible under the prevailing circumstances in the country, it may advise the Office of the Secretary that the subject country has not made significant progress in correcting its safety oversight deficiencies and recommend a course of action to review the status of all authorities issued to carriers of that country.
Current IASA category determinations for countries included in the IASA categorization system are available on the FAA web-site at http://www.faa.gov/avr/isa.htm
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations regarding certain credits of corporations that become members of a consolidated group. The regulations provide rules for computing the limitation with respect to certain credits earned in a separate return limitation year (SRLY) and the carryover and carryback of those credits to consolidated and separate return years. The regulations also eliminate the application of the SRLY rules in certain circumstances in which the rules of section 383 also apply.
Marie C. Milnes-Vasquez, (202) 622-7770 (not a toll-free number).
On January 12, 1998, the IRS and Treasury published in the
A notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the
On August 11, 1999, the IRS and Treasury issued final regulations relating to the recapture of OFLs (including elimination of any SRLY limitation on such recapture). (TD 8833, 64 FR 43613).
This Treasury decision adopts without substantive change the portions of the temporary regulations that were issued in 1998, relating to general business credits and minimum tax credits, with the addition of the “overlap rule”, discussed in
On July 2, 1999, the IRS and Treasury published in the
The IRS and Treasury believe that it is appropriate to apply a single set of SRLY principles to all attributes that are subject to SRLY limitations. Unnecessary complexity would result from applying different principles to different attributes. Accordingly, this document extends the principles of the overlap rule of the 1999 final regulations to the general business credit and the minimum tax credit. These final regulations adopt the mechanism of subgrouping and the
The final regulations generally are applicable to consolidated return years for which the due date of the income tax return (without extensions) is after March 13, 1998. However, there are some special effective dates. The rules contained in these final regulations (except the overlap rule) may be applied optionally to years beginning on or after January 1, 1997. Application of the overlap principles of § 1.1502-21(g) is generally effective for consolidated return years for which the return (without extensions) is due after May 25, 2000.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations principally affect persons filing consolidated federal income tax returns that have carryover or carryback of credits from separate return limitation years. Available data indicates that many consolidated return filers are large companies (not small businesses). In addition, the data indicates that an insubstantial number of consolidated return filers that are smaller companies have credit carryovers or carrybacks, and thus even fewer of these filers have credit carryovers or carrybacks that are subject to the separate return limitation year rules. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking accompanying these regulations was sent to the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small businesses.
The principal author of these regulations is Marie C. Milnes-Vasquez of the Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate). Other personnel from the IRS and Treasury participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.1502-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502.
Section 1.1502-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *.
Section 1.1502-55 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
(b) * * *
(3)
(i) Corporation P is incorporated on January 1, 1966. On that same day P incorporates corporation S, a wholly owned subsidiary. P and S file consolidated returns for calendar years 1966 and 1967. P's and S's credit earned, the consolidated credit earned, and the consolidated limitation based on amount of tax for 1966 and 1967 are as follows:
(ii) P's and S's credit earned for 1966 are aggregated, and the group's consolidated credit earned, $90,000, is allowable in full to the group as a credit under section 38 for 1966 since such amount is less than the consolidated limitation based on amount of tax for 1966, $100,000.
(iii) Since the consolidated limitation based on amount of tax for 1967 is $50,000, only $50,000 of the $65,000 consolidated credit earned for such year is allowable to the group under section 38 as a credit for 1967. The consolidated unused credit for 1967 of $15,000 ($65,000 less $50,000) is a consolidated investment credit carryback and carryover to the years prescribed in section 46(b). In this case the consolidated unused credit is a consolidated investment credit carryback to 1966 (since P and S were not in existence in 1964 and 1965) and a consolidated investment credit carryover to 1968 and subsequent years. The portion of the consolidated unused credit for 1967 which is allowable as a credit for 1966 is $10,000. This amount shall be added to the amount allowable as a credit to the group for 1966. The balance of the consolidated unused credit for 1967 to be carried to 1968 is $5,000. These amounts are computed as follows:
(c)
(2)
(i) The limitation based on amount of tax of the group, minus such limitation recomputed by excluding the items of income, deduction, and foreign tax credit of such member; over
(ii) The sum of the investment credit earned by such member for such consolidated return year, and the unused credits attributable to such member which may be carried to such consolidated return year arising in unused credit years ending prior to the particular separate return limitation year.
(3)
(4)
(i) Assume the same facts as in the example contained in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, except that all the stock of corporation T, also a calendar year taxpayer, is acquired by P on January 1, 1968, and that P, S, and T file a consolidated return for 1968. In 1966, T had an unused credit of $10,000 which has not been absorbed and is available as an investment credit carryover to 1968. Such carryover is from a separate return limitation year. P's and S's credit earned for 1968 is $10,000 each, and T's credit earned is $8,000; the consolidated credit earned is therefore $28,000. The group's consolidated limitation based on amount of tax for 1968 is $50,000. Such limitation recomputed by excluding the items of income, deduction, and foreign tax credit of T is $30,000. Thus, the amount determined under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section is $20,000 ($50,000 minus $30,000). Accordingly, the limitation on the carryover of T's unused credit is $12,000, the excess of $20,000 over $8,000 (the sum of T's credit earned for the taxable year and any carryovers from prior unused credit years (none in this case)). Therefore T's $10,000 unused credit from 1966 may be carried over to the consolidated return year without limitation.
(ii) The group's consolidated credit earned for 1968, $28,000, is allowable in full as a credit under section 38 since such amount is less than the consolidated limitation based on amount of tax, $50,000.
(iii) The group's consolidated investment credit carryover to 1968 is $15,000, consisting of the consolidated unused credits of the group ($5,000) plus T's separate return year unused credit ($10,000). The entire $15,000 consolidated carryover shall be added to the amount allowable to the group as a credit under section 38 for 1968, since such amount is less than $22,000 (the excess of the consolidated limitation based on tax, $50,000, over the sum of the consolidated credit earned for 1968, $28,000, and unused credits arising in prior unused credit years, zero).
Assume the same facts as in
(d)
(i) The aggregate for all consolidated return years of the member's contributions to the consolidated section 38(c) limitation for each consolidated return year; reduced by
(ii) The aggregate of the member's section 38 credits arising and absorbed in all consolidated return years (whether or not absorbed by the member).
(2)
(ii)
(A) For carryovers, any years ending after the year to which the credit is carried; and
(B) For carrybacks, any years ending after the year in which the credit arose.
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(A)
(B)
(ii)
(4)
(ii) If a consolidated group chooses to apply the corresponding provisions referred to in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section, the consolidated group shall not take into account a consolidated taxable year beginning before January 1, 1997, in determining a member's (or subgroup's) contributions to the consolidated section 38(c) limitation under this paragraph (d).
(5)
(i) Individual A owns all of the stock of P and T. P is the common parent of the P group. P acquires all the stock of T at the beginning of Year 2. T carries over an
(ii) T's Year 1 is a SRLY with respect to the P group. See § 1.1502-1(f)(2)(ii). T did not undergo an ownership change giving rise to a section 383 credit limitation within 6 months of joining the P group. Thus, T's $100,000 general business credit arising in Year 1 is subject to a SRLY limitation in the P group. The amount of T's unused section 38 credits from Year 1 that are included in the consolidated section 38 credits for Year 2 may not exceed T's contribution to the consolidated section 38(c) limitation. For Year 2, the group determines the consolidated section 38(c) limitation by reference to consolidated tentative minimum tax for Year 2. Therefore, T's contribution to the consolidated section 38(c) limitation for Year 2 equals its share of consolidated net income tax minus its share of consolidated tentative minimum tax. T's contribution is $280,000 minus $160,000, or $120,000. However, because the group has a consolidated section 38 limitation of zero, it may not include any of T's unused section 38 credits in the consolidated section 38 credits for Year 2.
(iii) The following table shows similar information for the group for Year 3:
(iv) The amount of T's unused section 38 credits from Year 1 that are included in the consolidated section 38 credits for Year 3 may not exceed T's aggregate contribution to the consolidated section 38(c) limitation for Years 2 and 3. For Year 3, the group determines the consolidated section 38(c) limitation by reference to the consolidated tentative minimum tax for Year 3. Therefore, T's contribution to the consolidated section 38(c) limitation for Year 3 equals its share of consolidated net income tax minus its share of consolidated tentative minimum tax. Applying the principles of section 1552 and § 1.1502-33(d) (taking into account, for example, that T's positive earnings and profits adjustment under § 1.1502-33(d) reflects its losses actually absorbed by the group), T's contribution is $(105,000) minus $(40,000), or $(65,000). T's aggregate contributions to the consolidated section 38(c) limitation for Years 2 and 3 is $120,000 + $(65,000), or $55,000. The group may include $55,000 of T's Year 1 unused section 38 credits in its consolidated section 38 tax credit in Year 3.
(e) * * *
(3)
(f)* * *
(3)
(g)* * *
(3)
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix)
(a) through (h)(3) [Reserved].
(h)(4)
(i) and (ii) [Reserved].
(iii)(A)
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(5)
(C)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
* * * For example, subgroups with respect to the carryover of general business credits, minimum tax credits, unused foreign tax, and net capital loss are determined by applying the principles of § 1.1502-91(d)(1). * * *
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary regulations in New York Harbor, Sandy Hook Bay, the Hudson and East Rivers, and the Kill Van Kull for OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 activities. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of New York Harbor, Sandy Hook Bay, the Hudson and East Rivers, and the Kill Van Kull.
This rule is effective from 12 p.m. e.s.t. on June 29, 2000, until 12 p.m. e.s.t. on July 5, 2000.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD01-99-050 and are available for inspection or copying at room 205, of the Waterways Oversight Branch of Coast Guard Activities New York, between 8 a.m., e.s.t. and 3 p.m., e.s.t. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant J. Lopez, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4193.
On February 7, 2000, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Temporary Regulations: OPSAIL 2000/International Naval Review 2000 (INR 2000), Port of New York/New Jersey in the
The U.S. Navy is sponsoring the International Naval Review. This event consists of the anchoring of approximately 50 U.S. and foreign naval vessels in line between the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and the George Washington Bridge. A high level U.S. dignitary will transit aboard a U.S. Navy vessel along this line as a ceremonial review. Operation Sail, Inc. is sponsoring the seventh OPSAIL Parade of Tall Ships, as well as a fireworks display co-sponsored by Macy's Inc. Operation Sail consists of a parade of sailing vessels from the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge north past a reviewing stand aboard the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67) anchored in Federal Anchorage 21B in Upper New York Bay. This parade will continue north to the George Washington Bridge where these vessels will turn south and go to berth throughout the Port of New York and New Jersey. These events are scheduled to take place on July 4, 2000, in the Port of New York/New Jersey, on the waters of New York Harbor, Sandy Hook Bay, the Hudson and East Rivers, and the Kill Van Kull. The Coast Guard expects a minimum of 40,000 spectator craft for these events. These regulations create temporary anchorage regulations, vessel movement controls, and two security zones. The regulations will be in effect at various times in the Port of New York and New Jersey during the period June 29, 2000 through July 5, 2000. The vessel congestion due to the large number of participating and spectator vessels poses a significant threat to the safety of life. This rulemaking is necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States.
The Coast Guard is establishing two regulated areas in New York Harbor that will be in effect from July 3-5, 2000. These two regulated areas are needed to protect the maritime public and participating vessels from possible hazards to navigation associated with;
Regulated Area A covers all waters of New York Harbor Lower Bay and Sandy Hook Bay within the following boundaries: south of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge; west of a line drawn shore to shore along 074°00′00″ W (NAD 1983) between Coney Island, New York, and Navesink, New Jersey; and east of a line drawn shore to shore along 074°03′12″ W (NAD 1983) between Fort Wadsworth, Staten Island, and Leonardo, New Jersey and all waters of Ambrose Channel shoreward of Ambrose Channel Entrance Lighted Gong Buoy 1 (LLNR 34800) and Ambrose Channel Entrance Lighted Bell Buoy 2 (LLNR 34805). Please see Chartlet I, depicting Regulated Area A, included with this Temporary final rule (TFR) for the convenience of the reader. This area is to be used as a staging area for vessels participating in the Parade of Tall Ships. This regulated area is effective from 6 a.m., e.s.t. July 3, until 4 p.m., e.s.t. on July 4, 2000.
Regulated Area B covers all waters of New York Harbor, Upper Bay, the Hudson, Harlem, and East Rivers, and the Kill Van Kull within the following boundaries: south of 40°52′39″ N (NAD 1983) on the Hudson River at Spuyten Duyvil Creek; west of the Throgs Neck Bridge on the East River; north of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge; and east of a line drawn from shore to shore along 074°05′15″ W (NAD 1983) between New Brighton, Staten Island, and Constable Hook, New Jersey, in the Kill Van Kull. Please see Chartlet II, depicting Regulated Area B, included with this TFR for the convenience of the reader. This regulated area is for the International Naval Review, the Parade of Tall Ships, and the July 4th fireworks display. This regulated area is effective from 10 a.m., e.s.t. on July 3, 2000, until 10 a.m., e.s.t. on July 5, 2000.
Spectator vessels transiting Regulated Area A or B must do so at no wake speed or at speeds not to exceed 10 knots, whichever is less. No vessels other than OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 vessels, their assisting tugs, and enforcement vessels, may enter or navigate within the boundaries of the Anchorage Channel or Hudson River in regulated Area B unless specifically authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, New York, or his on-scene representative. No vessel may anchor in the Anchorage Channel or Hudson River outside of the designated spectator anchorages in Regulated Area B at any time without authorization. The operation of seaplanes, including taxiing, landing, and taking off, is prohibited in Area B on July 3-4, 2000, without prior written authorization from the Captain of the Port. Ferry services may operate in Area B on July 3 and 5, 2000. On July 4, 2000 only those ferry services with prior written authorization from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port will be authorized to operate in this area.
No vessel, other than OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 vessels, their assisting tugs, and enforcement vessels, is permitted to transit the waters between Governors Island and The Battery in southern Manhattan from 7 a.m., e.s.t. July 4, 2000 until the end of the Parade of Sail. Vessels which must transit to or from the East River may only do so by using Buttermilk Channel unless otherwise authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, New York, or his on-scene representative.
Regulated Area A contains three anchorage grounds for use by OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 vessels only and it will also serve as a staging area for the vessels participating in the Parade of Sail. Regulated Area B contains anchorage grounds for OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 vessels and spectator craft. It contains the International Naval Review of Ships on the Hudson River and New York Harbor's Upper Bay, from the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to the George Washington Bridge (river mile 11.0). The International Naval Review will be conducted on the morning of July 4, 2000 and consists of a column of approximately 50 International Naval Ships anchored in the Hudson River and New York Harbor's Upper Bay along the western side of the Anchorage Channel. The U.S. Navy Review Ship will transit south along this column from the George Washington Bridge to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and conduct a review of all the participating naval ships. After the INR, approximately 300 vessels will participate in the Parade of Sailing Vessels which will take place in Area B between the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and the George Washington Bridge (river mile 11.0) on the Hudson River. Additionally, Area B will contain 11-13 fireworks barges being used for the July 4th fireworks display. Fireworks barges will be located in the Hudson River between the Holland Tunnel Ventilators and West 65th Street in Manhattan, in the East River between the southern tip of Roosevelt Island and The Battery, east of Liberty Island, and in the Anchorage Channel north of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
The Coast Guard is also establishing temporary Anchorage Regulations for participating OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 ships and spectator craft. Some current Anchorage Regulations in 33 CFR 110.155 are temporarily suspended by this regulation and new Anchorage Grounds and regulations are being temporarily established. Chartlets I, III, and IV illustrate the anchorage grounds and are included for the convenience of the reader.
The anchorage regulations designate selected current or temporarily established Anchorage Grounds for spectator or OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 participant vessel use only. They restrict all other vessels from using these Anchorage Grounds during a portion of the OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 event. The Anchorage Grounds are needed to provide viewing areas for spectator vessels while maintaining a clear parade route for the participating OPSAIL/INR vessels and to protect boaters and spectator vessels from the hazards associated with the International Naval Review and the Parade of Tall Ships.
The Coast Guard designates Anchorage Grounds 16, 17, and 18-A in the Hudson River in the vicinity of the George Washington Bridge (river mile 11.0); and the temporarily established Liberty Island Anchorage, Ellis Island Anchorage, Caven Point Anchorage, Jersey Flats Anchorage and Robbins Reef Anchorage in New York Harbor's Upper Bay, and a temporary Anchorage Ground from north of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to Owls Head Park along the Brooklyn shoreline exclusively for spectator vessel use from 12 p.m., e.s.t. on June 29, 2000, until 12 p.m., e.s.t. on July 5, 2000. The temporary Narrows Anchorage is being expanded to authorize a larger viewing area for spectator vessels between 25 meters (82 feet) and 60 meters (197 feet). The expanded area includes all waters of Anchorage Channel east of a line drawn between Gowanus Flats Lighted Bell Buoy 22 (LLNR 34945) and Bay Ridge Channel Lighted Buoy 2 (LLNR 36872) to the western boundary of the temporary Narrows Anchorage.
The Coast Guard also designates Anchorage Grounds 21-B, 23-A, 23-B, and 24 in New York Harbor's Upper Bay for OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 participant vessels. These regulations are effective from 3 a.m., e.s.t. July 1, 2000, through 6 p.m., e.s.t. July 5, 2000. Other vessels may be authorized to use these anchorages on July 1 and 2, 2000 as determined by the Captain of the Port, New York.
Additionally, the Coast Guard designates Anchorage Ground 25 and a temporarily established Anchorage Ground covering portions of Anchorage Grounds 26, 49-F and 49G in Sandy Hook Bay for OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 participant vessels. These proposed regulations are effective from 6 a.m., e.s.t. July 2, 2000, through 4 p.m., e.s.t. July 4, 2000.
The eastern portions of the Jersey Flats and Robbins Reef Anchorages and the Narrows Temporary Anchorage Ground are for vessels between 25 meters (82 feet) and 60 meters (197 feet) in length. Anchorage 21-C is for vessels greater than 60 meters (197 feet). Positioning within these three anchorages will be controlled by the Captain of the Port, New York. Persons desiring to use these anchorages must have a permit from the Captain of the Port New York. A lottery was held to determine vessel anchorage locations and applications are no longer being accepted.
The Coast Guard is establishing a moving security zone for all waters within 500 yards of the Review Ship for the International Naval Review from 7 a.m., e.s.t. until 11 a.m., e.s.t. on July 4, 2000. The Review Ship will be the U.S. Navy vessel that is anchored the furthest north in the Hudson River at 7 a.m., e.s.t. on July 4, 2000. This ship will get underway and transit down the Hudson River and Upper New York Bay between the George Washington Bridge (river mile 11.0) and the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. The Review Ship will be easily identifiable during its transit because it will be the only large U.S. Navy vessel that is underway at this time in the Port of New York, and it will be escorted by numerous U.S. Coast Guard small boats.
A second security zone is established for all waters within 500 yards of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67), from 10 a.m., e.s.t. until 5 p.m., e.s.t. on July 4, 2000 while in Anchorage 21-B and while being used as the reviewing stand for the Parade of Sailing Vessels. Numerous dignitaries who require Secret Service protection will be onboard both Navy vessels. Due to the dignitaries' attendance, security zones are required to ensure the proper level of protection to prevent sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other activities of a similar nature to the Port of New York/New Jersey.
We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule, but we did make two minor changes to it. The temporary Narrows Anchorage is being expanded to make a larger viewing area for spectator vessels between 25 meters (82 feet) and 60 meters (197 feet). The expanded area includes all waters of Anchorage Channel east of a line drawn between Gowanus Flats Lighted Bell Buoy 22 (LLNR 34945) and Bay Ridge Channel Lighted Buoy 2 (LLNR 36872) to the western boundary of the temporary Narrows Anchorage, and south of the current southern boundary of Federal Anchorage 21-C. This change increases the length of the temporary Narrows Anchorage by 1,450 yards. The increased anchorage length is necessary because it provides a greater area for spectator craft to anchor in. It is also easier to enforce as the western boundary is now aligned with the western boundary of Federal Anchorage No. 21-C. This will provide one straight boundary line to enforce as opposed to three boundary lines as originally planned. The expanded temporary Narrows Anchorage area will not have a negative impact on vessel traffic in the area because the expanded area does not include any navigable channels and it would not have been used by vessels. But it will have a positive impact because it provides space for five extra spectator craft that were alternate winners of the lottery drawing for anchorage spots in the area.
We changed section 110.155's introductory note to emphasize the mariners' need to exercise caution while using the temporarily designated anchorage areas for OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000. While we are not aware of any safety problems associated with these temporary anchorage areas, we can not ensure the anchor holding capability of each area nor that the bottoms are free from obstructions. Consequently, we are advising mariners to take appropriate precautions including using all means available to ensure their vessels are not dragging anchor. But based on past experience with these temporary anchorage areas, we have no reason to believe they are not adequate for their intended use.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of New York Harbor, Sandy Hook Bay, the Hudson and East Rivers, and the Kill Van Kull during the events, the effect of this regulation will not be significant for the following reasons: The limited duration that the regulated areas will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that have been and will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, facsimile, marine information broadcasts, New York Harbor Operations Committee meetings, and New York area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. At no time will commercial shipping access to Port Newark/Port Elizabeth facilities be prohibited. Access to those areas may be accomplished using Raritan Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and Newark Bay as an alternate route. This will allow the majority of the maritime industrial activity in the Port of New York/New Jersey to continue, relatively unaffected. Similar regulated areas were established for the 1986 and 1992 OPSAIL events. Based upon the Coast Guard's experiences learned from these previous events of a similar magnitude, these proposed regulations have been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on maritime interests yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary.
One substantive change is being made to the Temporary final rule. The temporary Narrows Anchorage is being expanded to authorize a larger viewing area for spectator vessels between 25 meters (82 feet) and 60 meters (197 feet). The expanded area includes all waters of Anchorage Channel east of a line drawn between Gowanus Flats Lighted Bell Buoy 22 (LLNR 34945) and Bay Ridge Channel Lighted Buoy 2 (LLNR 36872) to the western boundary of the temporary Narrows Anchorage, and south of the current southern boundary of Federal Anchorage 21-C. We expect this change to have no adverse economic impact as it increases the size of the available spectator craft viewing area in the Narrows Temporary anchorage without closing any portions of any navigable channels. As originally published in the NPRM, this area would not have been used by any vessels.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in portions of Lower and Upper New York Bay and the Hudson and East Rivers during various times from June 29-July 5, 2000. These regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following additional reasons: Although these regulations will apply to a substantial portion of the Port of New York/New Jersey, designated areas for
One substantive change is being made to the Temporary final rule. The temporary Narrows Anchorage is being expanded to authorize a larger viewing area for spectator vessels between 25 meters (82 feet) and 60 meters (197 feet). The expanded area includes all waters of Anchorage Channel east of a line drawn between Gowanus Flats Lighted Bell Buoy 22 (LLNR 34945) and Bay Ridge Channel Lighted Buoy 2 (LLNR 36872) to the western boundary of the temporary Narrows Anchorage, and south of the current southern boundary of Federal Anchorage 21-C. This will have a positive impact on small entities as it provides space for five more spectator craft to be awarded permits to anchor here in the lottery drawing. As originally published in the NPRM, this area would not have been used by any vessels.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. We provided explanations of the effect of these regulations on the Port of New York/New Jersey to approximately 15 small entities.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agricultural Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-800-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule, including the expansion of the Temporary Narrows Anchorage discussed in the Discussion of Comments and Changes section above, and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(f, g, and h), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. These temporary regulations establish special local regulations, anchorage grounds, and security zones. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
Anchorage grounds.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1233 through 1236; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 100.35.
(a)
(ii)
(2)
(ii)
(b)
(2) Vessels transiting Area B must do so at no wake speed or at speeds not to exceed 10 knots, whichever is less.
(3) Not withstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no vessel, other than OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 Vessels, their assisting tugs, and enforcement vessels, may enter or navigate within the boundaries of the main shipping channels in Area B unless they are specifically authorized to do so by Coast Guard Captain of the Port, New York, or his on-scene representative. No vessel in Area B is permitted to cross through the parade of sail, cross within 500 yards of the lead or last vessel in the parade of sail, or maneuver alongside within 100 yards of any OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 Vessel unless authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port.
(4) No vessel is permitted to anchor in the Anchorage Channel or the Hudson River outside of the designated anchorages at any time without authorization. Vessels which need to anchor to maintain position will only do so in designated anchorage areas.
(5) No vessel, other than OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 Vessels, their assisting tugs, and enforcement vessels, is permitted to transit the waters between Governors Island and The Battery in southern Manhattan from 7 a.m., e.s.t. July 4, 2000 until the end of the Parade of Sailing Vessels. Vessels which must transit to or from the East River may only do so by using Buttermilk Channel, unless otherwise authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, New York, or his designated on-scene representative.
(6) Ferry services may operate in Area B on July 3 and 5, 2000. On July 4, 2000 only those with prior written authorization from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port will be authorized to operate in this area.
(7) The operation of seaplanes, including taxiing, landing, and taking off, is prohibited in Area B on July 3-4, 2000, without prior written authorization from the Captain of the Port.
(8) All spectator vessels must maintain their position in the designated spectator craft anchorages during the fireworks display on July 4th scheduled from 9 p.m., e.s.t. until 10:45 p.m., e.s.t.
(c)
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g).
The designated anchorage grounds in this section have not been specially surveyed or inspected and navigational charts may not show all seabed obstructions or shallowest depths. Additionally, the anchorages are in areas of substantial currents. Mariners who use these temporary anchorages should take appropriate precautions, including using all means available to ensure your vessel is not dragging anchor. Finally, these are not special anchorage areas. Thus vessels must display anchor lights, as required by the navigation rules.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) This anchorage is designated for the exclusive use of spectator vessels less than 25 meters (82 feet) in length on a first come, first served basis.
(2) * * *
(ii) See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3) * * *
(ii) See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
(d) * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) This anchorage is for OPSAIL 2000 participating vessels only.
(11) * * *
(iii) This anchorage is reserved for OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 participating vessels. No other vessel may anchor or operate in this area within 100 yards of OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 participating vessels.
(12) * * *
(iii) This anchorage is for vessels greater than 60 meters (197 feet) in length. Persons desiring to use this anchorage must hold a permit from the Captain of the Port New York on their vessel. A lottery was held to determine vessel anchorage locations and applications are no longer being accepted.
(iv) This anchorage is available for vessels observing or participating in OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 festivities and which have been authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, New York. No vessel may anchor within this area without authorization to do so.
(13) * * *
(vi) See paragraph (d)(12)(iv) of this section.
(14) * * *
(iv) See paragraph (d)(12)(iv) of this section.
(15) * * *
(iii) See paragraph (d)(12)(iv) of this section.
(17) The anchorages in this paragraph (d)(17) are designated for the exclusive use of spectator vessels less than 25 meters (82 feet) in length on a first come, first served basis.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(18)
(i) The area west of the eastern end of the Global Marine Terminal Pier is for the exclusive use of spectator vessels less than 25 meters (82 feet) in length on a first come, first served basis. The area east of the eastern end of the Global Marine Terminal Pier is for vessels between 25 meters (82 feet) and 60 meters (197 feet) in length.
(ii) Persons desiring to use this anchorage must hold a permit from the Captain of the Port New York on their vessel. A Lottery was held to determine vessel anchorage locations and applications are no longer being accepted.
(19)
(i) The area west of the eastern end of the Military Ocean Terminal Pier is for the exclusive use of spectator vessels less than 25 meters (82 feet) in length on a first come, first served basis. The area east of the eastern end of the Military Ocean Terminal Pier is for vessels between 25 meters (82 feet) and 60 meters (197 feet) in length.
(ii) Persons desiring to use this anchorage must hold a permit from the Captain of the Port New York on their vessel. A lottery was held to determine vessel anchorage locations and applications are no longer being accepted.
(20) All vessels anchored in the anchorages described in paragraphs (d)(17) through (19) of this section must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(16)(iii) through (vii) of this section. Any vessel anchored in or intending to anchor in Federal Anchorage 21-A through 21-C, 23-A, 23-B, 24 or 25 must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(16)(i) through (x) of this section.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) No vessel other than OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 Vessels and their designated assist tugs may anchor and/or approach within 100 yards of any OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 Vessel navigating or anchored in this area.
(m) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Anchorage No. 49-F is reserved for vessels as set out in paragraph (o)(2) of this section.
(3) * * *
(ii) Anchorage No. 49-G is reserved for vessels as set out in paragraph (o)(2) of this section.
(o)
(i) This anchorage is designated for the exclusive use of spectator vessels between 25 meters (82 feet) and 60 meters (197 feet) in length. Persons desiring to use this anchorage must hold a permit from the Captain of the Port New York on their vessel. A lottery was held to determine vessel anchorage locations and applications are no longer being accepted.
(ii)
(2)
(i) This anchorage sets aside Anchorage No. 49-F and a portion of Anchorage No. 26, as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, for the exclusive use of OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 Vessels.
(ii) No vessels other than OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 naval and Tall Ships, their designated assist tugs, and enforcement vessels may anchor, loiter, or approach within 100 yards of any OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000 Vessel when it is navigating or at anchor in this area.
(iii)
(p)
(i) The introductory text of this section is applicable.
(ii) The suspension of paragraphs (d)(1) through (5), (d)(10)(i), (n)(1), the introductory text of paragraph (d)(16), and the note to paragraph (f)(1) introductory text of this section is applicable.
(iii) Paragraphs (d)(10)(ii), (d)(17) through (20) and (p) of this section are applicable.
(2) The suspension of paragraphs (d)(7) through (9) of this section is applicable from 3 a.m., e.s.t. on July 3, 2000 through 12 noon on July 5, 2000.
(3) From 3 a.m., e.s.t. on July 3, 2000 through 6 a.m., e.s.t. on July 5, 2000:
(i) The suspension of paragraph (d)(12)(i) of this section is applicable.
(ii) Paragraphs (d)(11)(iii), (d)(12)(iii) and (iv), (d)(13)(vi), (d)(14)(iv), and (d)(15)(iii) of this section are applicable.
(4) From 6 a.m., e.s.t. on July 2, 2000 through 4 p.m., e.s.t. on July 4, 2000:
(i) The suspensions of paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (ii), and (m)(3)(i) of this section are applicable.
(ii) Paragraphs (m)(2)(iii), (m)(3)(ii), and (e)(1)(iii) of this section are applicable.
(5) From 6 a.m., e.s.t. on July 2, 2000 through 12 noon on July 5, 2000, paragraph (o) of this section is applicable.
(6) From 12 noon on July 2, 2000 through 12 noon on July 5, 2000, paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3)(ii) of this section are applicable.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a) The following areas are established as security zones:
(1)
(ii)
(2)
(ii)
(b)
(c) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary regulations in the Port of Miami for OpSail Miami 2000 activities. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during OpSail Miami 2000. This action will restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Port of Miami.
This rule is effective from 9 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on June 9, 2000 and terminates at 4 p.m. EDT on June 10, 2000.
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Miami maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are available for inspection or copying at room 201, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Miami, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., EDT Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Joseph Boudrow, Port Management and Response Department, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Miami, (305) 535-8705.
On December 17, 1999, the Coast Guard published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), and on March 17, 2000, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled OPSAIL 2000 in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The temporary regulations are for OpSail Miami 2000 events scheduled to be held in portions of the Port of Miami over the period of June 6-10, 2000. This rule will provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during OpSail Miami 2000 events on June 9, 2000 and June 10, 2000.
OpSail Miami 2000, Inc., is sponsoring OpSail Miami 2000 activities which consist of the arrival, display, and departure parade of numerous large U. S. and foreign flagged sail vessels. A fireworks display is planned for the evening prior to the final day of the sail vessel visit. Currently, approximately 20 Class A (175 feet or larger in length) and 20 smaller Class B (100 feet up to 175 feet) and C (up to 100 feet) sail vessels are expected to participate in OpSail Miami 2000.
Participant sail vessels will begin arriving in the Port of Miami on June 6, 2000 and will moor alongside Dodge Island within the Port of Miami. These vessels will be open to the public during certain hours between June 7 and June 9, 2000. On June 9, 2000, fireworks displays will be conducted commencing approximately 9:00 p.m. EDT from the orchestra vessel POINT COUNTERPOINT II, a barge anchored in the turning basin at the west end of Main Channel, and the Watson Island bridge structure. On June 10, 2000, the sail vessels will make their departure from the Port of Miami in a parade commencing approximately 12 noon EDT and ending approximately 4 p.m. EDT. Participant sail vessels will proceed under auxiliary power from their moorings to the turning basin at the west end of the Main Channel. From the turning basin, they will proceed under auxiliary power in 300 to 500 yard intervals in a ocean-bound direction along the Main Channel, thence along Government Cut, thence along Bar Cut, thence along Outer Bar Cut, to the vicinity of Miami Lighted Bouy M (Light List Number (LLNR) 10455-895), located at 25 degrees, 46.0 minutes North latitude, 080 degrees, 05.0 minutes West longitude. The area of Miami Lighted Buoy M is the termination point for pilotage. As pilots disembark their vessels, the sail vessels will parade northward off the coastline, under sail, to the parade termination point in the general vicinity of the entrance to Port Everglades, Florida.
Waterborne spectator areas have been designated by the event sponsor to be on either side of Bar Cut and Outer Bar Cut in the open ocean. These areas will be delineated by lines of marker floats placed by the sponsor. The marker floats will be round balls, orange in color, and spaced approximately 200 yards apart. They will be placed 100 yards out from the aids to navigation that mark each side of the channel. Spectator craft will be expected to remain behind the marker float lines for the duration of the parade.
Because of the number of the sail vessels, fireworks displays, and the large number of spectator watercraft expected during the parade, the Coast Guard is establishing regulations for the creation of temporary safety zones and vessel movement controls in portions of the Port of Miami and its channels affected by these events. The regulations will be in effect on June 9 and 10, 2000. The vessel congestion due to the large number of participant and spectator vessels poses a significant threat to the safety of life and property. The Coast Guard has determined this rulemaking is necessary to ensure the safety of life and property on the navigable waters of the United States within portions of the Port of Miami affected by this event.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones for fireworks displays on June 9, 2000 and the Parade of Sail on June 10, 2000. The safety zone for June 9, 2000 shall include all waters within 100 yards of the orchestra vessel
The safety zone for the June 10, 2000, Parade of Sail shall include all waters in the Port of Miami within the turning basin at the west end of Main Channel bounded by the bridges connecting Dodge Island and Watson Island to the mainland, the Main Channel, Lummus Island Cut east of a line drawn northward from the west end of Fisher Island, Government Cut, Bar Cut, Outer Bar Cut, and 100 yards on either side of the Bar Cut and Outer Bar Cut short range navigational aids, seaward to Miami Lighted Buoy M (LLNR 10455-895).
Entry into these safety zones by non-participating vessels will be prohibited. The Coast Guard expects many spectator craft for this millennium event. These craft will be allowed to view the Parade of Sail vessels from viewing areas on either side of Bar Cut and Outer Bar Cut. These areas will delineated by marker floats placed by the sponsor of the event.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
Although the rule prohibits all non-parade related traffic in the area of the temporary safety zone on Saturday, June 10, 2000, the effect of this regulation will not be significant for the following reasons: the regulation will be in effect for less than 6 hours; the maritime community will receive extensive advance notices through Local Notices to Mariners, facsimile, and marine information broadcasts, maritime association meetings, and Miami area newspapers; and specific viewing areas will be marked for spectator vessels.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We received no comments on this rule from small entities. However, this rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit those portions of the Port of Miami during the two periods of safety zone enforcement. These regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although these regulations would apply to a substantial portion of the Port of Miami, the periods of the regulatory enforcement will be of short duration. Before the effective periods, the Coast Guard will make notifications to the public via mailings, facsimilies, the Local Notice to Mariners, and use of the sponsor Internet site. In addition, OpSail Miami 2000, Inc., the sponsoring organization, is planning to publish information of the event in local newspapers, pamphlets, and television and radio broadcasts.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we will assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Joe Boudrow, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Miami at (305) 535-8705.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This rule would not impose on unfunded mandate.
This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
We considered the environmental impact of this action and have determined under Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, that this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
Pursuant to procedures described in the January 19, 1989
This rule is effective May 25, 2000.
Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Copies of material submitted to EPA and other information supporting this action may be examined during normal business hours at the following locations: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-1390.
Debra Suzuki, EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-0985.
We approved the following minor SIP revision request under section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act):
We took no action on the definitions relating to the Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Rule and on Tables 1 through 3. Please note that since these SIP revisions were adopted by the state, other modifications to Oregon's rules may have been adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission and submitted to EPA for approval (
A. Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 24, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
During EPA's review of a SIP revision involving Oregon's statutory authority, a problem was detected which affected the enforceability of point source permit limitations. EPA determined that, because the five-day advance notice provision required by ORS 468.126(1) (1991) bars civil penalties from being imposed for certain permit violations, ORS 468 fails to provide the adequate enforcement authority that a state must demonstrate to obtain SIP approval, as specified in section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 51.230. Accordingly, the requirement to provide such notice would preclude federal approval of a section 110 SIP revision.
To correct the problem the Governor of Oregon signed into law new legislation amending ORS 468.126 on September 3, 1993. This amendment added paragraph ORS 468.126(2)(e) which provides that the five-day advance notice required by ORS 468.126(1) does not apply if the notice requirement will disqualify a state program from federal approval or delegation. ODEQ responded to EPA's understanding of the application of ORS 468.126(2)(e) and agreed that, because federal statutory requirements preclude the use of the five-day advance notice provision, no advance notice will be required for violations of SIP requirements contained in permits.
Another enforcement issue concerns Oregon's audit privilege and immunity law. Nothing in this action should be construed as making any determination or expressing any position regarding Oregon's Audit Privilege Act, ORS 468.963 enacted in 1993, or its impact upon any approved provision in the SIP, including the revision at issue here. The action taken herein does not express or imply any viewpoint on the question of whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any other Clean Air Act Program resulting from the effect of Oregon's audit privilege and immunity law. A state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities. EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by a state audit privilege or immunity law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Volatile organic compounds.
Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for the State of Oregon was approved by the Director of the Office of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(131) On December 3, 1998, the Director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted a revision to the definition section of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), as effective October 14, 1998.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) OAR 340-028-0110, as effective October 14, 1998, except for the following: (16) Capture system, (25) Continuous compliance determination method, (27) Control device, (29) Data, (39)(b) Emission Limitation and Emission Standard, (47) Exceedance, (48) Excursion, (55) Inherent process equipment, (67) Monitoring, (86) Pollutant-specific emissions unit, (88) Predictive emission monitoring system (PEMS), Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.
(B) Remove the following provision from the current incorporation by reference: OAR 340-028-0110, as effective October 6, 1995, except for Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Immediate final rule.
Minnesota has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize Minnesota's changes to their hazardous waste program will take effect as provided below. If we get comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document in the
This Final authorization will become effective on August 23, 2000 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 26, 2000. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the
Send written comments referring to Docket Number Minnesota ARA 8, to Gary Westefer, Minnesota Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, DM-7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7450. We must receive your comments by June 26, 2000. You can view and copy Minnesota's application from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm at the following addresses: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road, North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, contact Nathan Cooley at (651) 297-7544; or EPA Region 5, contact Gary Westefer at the following address.
Gary Westefer, Minnesota Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, DM-7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7450.
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
We conclude that Minnesota's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Minnesota Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Minnesota has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Minnesota, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Minnesota subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Minnesota has enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA maintains independent authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, the authority to conduct inspections and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports and to enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Minnesota is being authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action.
EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
If EPA receives appropriate comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the
If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule, but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The
Minnesota initially received Final authorization on January 28, 1985, effective February 11, 1985 (50 FR 3756), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on July 20, 1987, effective September 18, 1987 (52 FR 27199), on April 24, 1989, effective June 23, 1989 (54 FR 16361), amended June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27170), on June 15, 1990, effective August 14, 1990 (55 FR 24232), on June 24, 1991, effective August 23, 1991 (56 FR 28709), on March 19, 1992, effective May 18, 1992 (57 FR 9501), on March 17, 1993, effective May 17, 1993 (58 FR 14321), and on January 20, 1994, effective March 21, 1994 (59 FR 2998).
On March 7, 2000, Minnesota submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of program changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA reviewed Minnesota's application, and we now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of adverse written comments that oppose this action, that Minnesota's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant Minnesota Final authorization for the following program changes:
In the changes currently being made to Minnesota's program, we consider the following State requirement to be more stringent than the Federal requirements:
• Minnesota Rules 7001.0623, because the State does not allow for an exemption to Subpart F of 40 CFR part 264, as provided for in 40 CFR 270.26(b), making the State requirements more stringent.
Broader-in-scope requirements are not part of the authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them. Although you must comply with these requirements in accordance with state law, they are not RCRA requirements. There are no broader-in-scope provisions in these changes.
Minnesota will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized, and will administer the permits that it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits, or portions of permits, that we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Minnesota is not yet authorized.
Minnesota is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country within the State, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes:
1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian Reservations, located within or abutting the State of Minnesota:
2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe, and
3. Any other land, whether on or off a reservation that qualifies as Indian country.
Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian country where EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in these lands.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The authorized Minnesota RCRA program was incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 272 on May 15, 1989, effective July 14, 1989 (54 FR 20851). Minnesota's Incorporation by Reference was amended on March 16, 1990, effective May 15, 1990 (55 FR 9880), on October 15, 1992, effective December 14, 1992 (57 FR 47265), and on September 6, 1994, effective November 7, 1994 (59 FR 45986).
We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart Y for this authorization of Minnesota's program changes until a later date.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that section 202 and 205 requirements do not apply to today's action because this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and/or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector. Costs to State, local and/or tribal governments already exist under the Minnesota program, and today's action does not impose any additional obligations on regulated entities. In fact, EPA's approval of State programs generally may reduce, not increase, compliance costs for the private sector. Further, as it applies to the State, this action does not impose a Federal intergovernmental mandate because UMRA does not include duties arising from participation in a voluntary federal program.
The requirements of section 203 of UMRA also do not apply to today's action because this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although small governments may be hazardous waste generators, transporters, or own and/or operate TSDFs, they are already subject to the regulatory requirements under the existing State laws that are being authorized by EPA, and, thus, are not subject to any additional significant or unique requirements by virtue of this program approval.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as specified in the Small Business Administration regulations; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this authorization on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action does not impose any new requirements on small entities because small entities that are hazardous waste
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This authorization does not have federalism implications. It will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because this rule affects only one State. This action simply approves Minnesota's proposal to be authorized for updated requirements of the hazardous waste program that the State has voluntarily chosen to operate. Further, as a result of this action, newly authorized provisions of the State's program now apply in Minnesota in lieu of the equivalent Federal program provisions implemented by EPA under HSWA. Affected parties are subject only to those authorized State program provisions, as opposed to being subject to both Federal and State regulatory requirements. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply.
Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” applies to any rule that: (1) the Office of Management and Budget determines is “economically significant,” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it authorizes a State program.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies with consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13084 because it does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Minnesota is not authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous waste program in Indian country. This action has no effect on the hazardous waste program that EPA implements in the Indian country within the State.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Office of Governmentwide Policy, GSA.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects an error contained in a final rule appearing in Part III of the
May 30, 2000.
Martha Caswell, Director, Personal Property Management Policy Division (MTP), 202-501-3828.
In rule document 00-11921 beginning on page 31218 in the issue of Tuesday, May 16, 2000, make the following correction:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
The Commission dismisses as moot the Application for Review filed by Reding Broadcasting Company, requesting reconsideration of a dismissal of its proposal to substitute Channel 252A for Channel 253C2 at Pleasanton, TX, substitute Channel 253A for Channel 290A at Hondo, TX and Channel 252A for Channel 276A at Bandera, TX. Petitioner received requested relief in MM Docket No. 98-55.
Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order, MM Docket No. 90-466 adopted April 12, 2000, and released April 14, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission, at the request of Dana Puopolo, allots Channel 296A to Saranac Lake, NY, as the community's third local FM service.
Effective June 12, 2000.
Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-83, adopted April 19, 2000, and released April 28, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. In addition, Channel 296A at Saranac Lake will be short-spaced to Station CITE-FM, Channel 297C1, Montreal, Quebec,
Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 336.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document allots Channel 223A, in lieu of previously proposed Channel 237A, to Bayfield, Colorado, as an additional local FM transmission service at that community in response to a petition for rule making filed by Mountain West Broadcasting (RM-9506).
Effective June 9, 2000. A filing window period for Channel 223A at Bayfield, Colorado, and for Channel 237C1 at Teec Nos Pos, Arizona, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of opening a filing window for those channels will be addressed by the Commission in a subsequent Order.
Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. Questions related to the application filing process should be addressed to the Audio Services Division, (202) 418-2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-103, adopted April 19, 2000, and released April 25, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; request for comments.
NMFS is closing, for a 2 week period, all inshore waters and offshore waters out to 10 nautical miles (nm) (18.5 km) seaward of the COLREGS demarcation line, bounded by 32° N. lat. (approximately Tybee Island, Georgia) and 34° N. lat. (approximately Wilmington Beach, North Carolina) within the Leatherback Conservation Zone, to fishing by shrimp trawlers required to have a turtle excluder device (TED) installed in each net that is rigged for fishing, unless the TED has an escape opening large enough to exclude leatherback turtles, as specified in the regulations. This action is necessary to reduce mortality of endangered leatherback sea turtles incidentally captured in shrimp trawls.
This action is effective from May 19, 2000 through 11:59 p.m. (local time) on June 2, 2000.
Comments on this action should be addressed to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments may also be sent via fax to 301-713-0376. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.
Charles A. Oravetz, (727) 570-5312, (ph.
For assistance in modifying TED escape openings to exclude leatherback sea turtles, fishermen may contact gear specialists at the NMFS, Pascagoula, MS laboratory by phone (228) 762-4591 or fax (228) 769-8699.
Prohibitions to taking sea turtles are governed by regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act at 50 CFR parts 222 and 223. The incidental take of turtles during shrimp fishing in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of the southeastern United States and in the Gulf of Mexico is excepted from the taking prohibition pursuant to sea turtle conservation regulations at 50 CFR 223.206, which include a requirement that shrimp trawlers have a NMFS-approved TED installed in each net rigged for fishing. The use of TEDs significantly reduces mortality of loggerhead, green, Kemp's ridley, and hawksbill sea turtles. Because leatherback turtles are larger than the escape openings of most NMFS-approved TEDs, use of these TEDs is not an effective means of protecting leatherback turtles.
Through a final rule (60 FR 47713 September 14, 1995), NMFS established regulations to provide protection for leatherback turtles when they occur in locally high densities during their annual, spring northward migration along the Atlantic seaboard. Within the Leatherback Conservation Zone, NMFS may close an area for 2 weeks when leatherback sightings exceed 10 animals per 50 nm (92.6 km) during repeated aerial surveys pursuant to § 223.206(d)(2)(iv)(A) through (C).
An aerial survey conducted on May 12, 2000, along the South Carolina coast documented 14 leatherback turtles over a total survey trackline of approximately 39.7 nm (73.6 km). The survey trackline was flown in a northeasterly direction commencing approximately 1 nm (1.9 km) offshore of Bull's Island (32°55′ N. lat., 080°39′ W. long.) and terminating approximately 1 nm (1.9 km) off of Winyah Bay (33°13′ N. lat., 080°11′ W. long.). A replicate survey conducted on May 16, 2000 sighted 12 leatherbacks in 46 nm (85.2 km) of trackline. This survey was flown in a northeasterly direction commencing approximately 1 nm (1.9 km) offshore of Isle of Palms (32°46′ N. lat., 080°46′ W. long.) and terminating approximately 1 nm (1.9 km) offshore of North Island (33°15′ N. lat., 080°11′ W. long.). Fishing effort appeared heavy at the time of the survey. One hundred and sixteen vessels (77 underway shrimp trawlers) were observed during the survey of the South Carolina coast.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has determined that all inshore waters and offshore waters within 10 nm (18.5 km) seaward of the COLREGS demarcation line, bounded by 32° N. lat. and 34° N. lat., within the Leatherback Conservation Zone are closed to fishing by shrimp trawlers required to have a TED installed in each net that is rigged for fishing, unless the TED installed has an escape opening large enough to exclude leatherback turtles, meeting the specifications at 50 CFR 223.207(a)(7)(ii)(B) or 223.207(c)(1)(iv)(B). These regulations specify modifications that can be made to either single-grid hard TEDs or Parker soft TEDs to allow leatherbacks to escape.
The regulations at 50 CFR 223.206(d)(2)(iv) also state that fishermen operating in the closed area with TEDs modified to exclude leatherback turtles must notify the NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator of their intentions to fish in the closed area. This aspect of the regulations does not have a current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number, issued pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consequently, fishermen are not required to notify the Regional Administrator prior to fishing in the closed area, but they must still meet the gear requirements.
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The AA is taking this action in accordance with the requirements of 50 CFR 223.206(d)(2)(iv) to provide protection for endangered leatherback sea turtles from incidental capture and drowning in shrimp trawls. Leatherback sea turtles are occurring in high concentrations in coastal waters in shrimp fishery statistical zones 32 and 33. This action allows shrimp fishing to continue in the affected area and informs fishermen of the gear changes that they can make to protect leatherback sea turtles.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds that there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity to comment on this action. It would be contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice and opportunity for comment because providing notice and comment would prevent the agency from implementing the necessary action in a timely manner to protect the endangered leatherback. Notice and opportunity to comment on the leatherback closure procedures was provided through the rulemaking establishing the closure procedures (60 FR 25663, May 12, 1995).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the AA finds that there is good cause not to delay the effective date of this rule for 30 days. It would be contrary to the public interest to delay this action because such delay would prevent the agency from implementing the necessary action in a timely manner to protect the endangered leatherback. Accordingly, the AA is making the rule effective May 19, 2000 through June 2, 2000. This closure has been announced on the NOAA weather channel, in newspapers, and other media. Shrimp trawlers may also call (727) 570-5312 for updated area closure information. As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this notification by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of 5 U.S.C. 601
The AA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the final rule requiring TED use in shrimp trawls and the regulatory framework for the Leatherback Conservation Zone (60 FR 47713, September 14, 1995). Copies of the EA are available (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues a final rule to amend portions of the regulations
Effective June 26, 2000.
Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Gravel, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228. A copy of the September 9, 1997, environmental assessment prepared for the Multispecies Community Development Quota (MS CDQ) Program can be obtained from the same address.
Comments involving the reporting burden estimates or any other aspects of the collection of information requirements contained in this final rule should be sent to both Lori Gravel, at the above address, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, D.C. 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk Officer). Comments sent by e-mail or the Internet will not be accepted.
Alan Kinsolving, 907-586-7228 or alan.kinsolving@noaa.gov.
NMFS manages Fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels in the exclusive economic zone of the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska and the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations implementing the FMPs at 50 CFR part 679 and subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 govern fishing by U.S. vessels. Equipment and operational requirements for catch weight measurement appear at 50 CFR 679.28 and equipment and operational requirements for transmission of observer data appear at 50 CFR 679.50.
This final rule makes numerous minor revisions to §§ 679.28 and 679.32. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement these revisions in the
1. Explicitly allow NMFS staff to inspect and approve scales for use at-sea;
2. Allow the use of scale approval stickers or seals in lieu of maintaining a scale inspection report on board the vessel;
3. Relax the annual certification requirements for the test weights that must accompany an approved observer platform scale;
4. Allow scale manufacturers to use a computer-generated check number instead of a physical seal to protect adjustable scale components from fraudulent tampering;
5. Relax the requirements for the daily printout of haul information for a vessel that must weigh all catch;
6. Modify the requirements for visibility of the display on a total-catch weighing scale;
7. Require operators of trawl catcher/processors to ensure that no removal of fish can take place between the bin and observer sampling station without the removal being visible to the observer;
8. Define “tally area” and “collection point” for longline catcher/processors and specify requirements for their dimensions, location, and construction;
9. Define the phrase “clear and unobstructed passage,” as used in the current regulations;
10. Make the minimum work space requirements for the observer sampling station more flexible by giving a minimum area criterion in lieu of specific minimum station length and width requirements;
11. Require that observer sampling station scales be mounted with the platform (i.e., the weighing surface) no more than 0.7 meter above the floor;
12. Require that trawl catcher/processors provide at least 1 meter of belt space downstream from the total-catch weighing scale for the observer's use when processing samples; and
13. Require that catcher/processors and motherships obtain, install, and maintain NMFS-provided data-entry software if participating in CDQ fisheries.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 requires that NMFS prepare a compliance guide that explains how small entities must comply with the regulations implemented in this final rule. This action revises the requirements for observer sampling stations, at-sea scales, and transmission of observer data. This action affects all small entities that are required to install and maintain NMFS-approved scales or observer sampling stations. Affected entities must comply with the regulations concerning at-sea scales and observer sampling stations at § 679.28 and the regulations concerning the transmission of observer data in the CDQ program at § 679.32.
Because this rule makes changes to the at-sea scales and observer sampling station programs, it is possible that a sampling station or scale that was acceptable when inspected in 1999 will not be acceptable now. NMFS recommends that small entities required to provide NMFS-approved scales or observer sampling stations contact Alan Kinsolving (see
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA that have been approved by OMB. The OMB control numbers and estimated response times for these requirements are: the submission of
The estimates of response times given here include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to NMFS (see
NMFS prepared an FRFA for this final rule that describes the impact this action will have on small entities. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS. No comments were received on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis prepared for this action. The Summary and Conclusions section of the FRFA states:
This action revises and clarifies the equipment and technical requirements for at-sea scales, observer sampling stations, and observer transmission of data by making numerous, minor revisions to the regulations implementing these programs. The action is necessary to ensure NMFS' ability to effectively manage these programs; to improve the clarity and consistency of the implementing regulations; and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. It is being promulgated under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action will directly affect the 13 freezer longliners currently equipped with scales or observer sampling stations that may be small entities. The ownership characteristics of vessels that would be impacted by this action have not been analyzed to determine if they are independently owned and operated or affiliated with a larger parent company. This action will impose no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements nor will it duplicate, overlap, or conflict with existing Federal rules. NMFS estimates that this action will cost the owners of directly affected freezer longliners less than $8,500 distributed among the 13 vessels and in no case cost any one vessel more than $1,700. This represents less than .06 percent of the average per-vessel gross revenues for the affected vessels. In addition to the preferred alternative, the analysis considered two other alternatives: a “no action” alternative that would not revise the existing regulations; and a “partial implementation” alternative that would implement some of the proposed revisions. These alternatives were rejected because they would fail to make the changes necessary for successful management of these programs. NMFS cannot quantify measures to minimize economic impacts on small entities with this type of rulemaking, which is being implemented to ensure that the NMFS-certified observer on board a vessel is able to collect data in a reliable and unbiased manner within a safe working environment. However, the preferred alternatives selected were crafted to minimize costs to the industry and still achieve safety goals.
A copy of the RIR/FRFA can be obtained from NMFS (see
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii)
(vii)
(B) The scale inspector must provide the original inspection report to the vessel owner and a copy to NMFS.
(C) The vessel owner must either:
(1) Maintain a copy of the report on board when use of the scale is required and make the report available to the observer, NMFS personnel, or an authorized officer, upon request, or;
(2) Display a valid NMFS-sticker on each approved scale.
(D) When in use, an approved scale must also meet the requirements described in paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(6) of this section.
(3)
(ii) * * * (A) The MPE for platform and hanging scales is plus or minus 0.5 percent of the known weight of the test material.
(B)
(5)
(i)
(A) The vessel name and Federal fisheries or processor permit number;
(B) The haul or set number as recorded in the processor's DCPL (see § 679.5);
(C) The total weight of the haul or set;
(D) The total cumulative weight of all fish or other material weighed on the scale.
(6)
(d) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(ii)
(B)
(8)
(i) * * *
(G) For catcher/processors using trawl gear and motherships, a diagram drawn to scale showing the location(s) where all catch will be weighed, the location where observers will sample unsorted catch, and the location of the observer sampling station as described at paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Obtain the data entry software provided by the Regional Administrator (“ATLAS software”) for use by the observer and ensure that observer data can be transmitted from the vessel to NMFS at any time while the vessel is receiving, catching or processing CDQ species.
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing proposed regulations giving agencies discretionary authority to grant pay retention to certain employees moving to positions under pay systems other than the General Schedule or the Federal Wage System. This new flexibility would allow agencies to prevent eligible employees from suffering a reduction in pay that would otherwise result from a management action. The proposed regulations also provide that grade retention will no longer apply to employees moving into the General Schedule or the Federal Wage System from noncovered pay systems.
Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2000.
Comments may be sent or delivered to Donald J. Winstead, Assistant Director for Compensation Administration, Workforce Compensation and Performance Service, Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H31, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200 (FAX: (202) 606-0824 or EMAIL: payleave@opm.gov)
Sharon Herzberg (202) 606-2858 or FAX: (202) 606-0824 or EMAIL:
Under 5 U.S.C. 5361-5365, agencies may grant grade or pay retention to employees covered by the General Schedule (GS) pay system or the Federal Wage System (FWS) when a reduction in grade or pay is caused or influenced by a management action and certain other conditions are met. While the law expressly provides that these provisions apply to movements within or between those two covered pay schedules, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has provided by regulation that these provisions may also be applied to certain employees who move from a noncovered pay schedule to a covered pay schedule. (See definition of
The Department of Justice has requested that we extend pay retention to members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) who move to immigration judge (IJ) positions. While there is no provision in statute or regulation that permits management to direct the movement of a member of the SES to an IJ position, there are circumstances that have resulted in the movement of an SES member to a non-SES position that has a lower rate of pay. Examples include an SES member who voluntarily accepts a non-SES position following receipt of a notice of position abolishment or a notice of directed geographic reassignment (if there is no mobility agreement), or other management action that causes or influences the employee to move to a lower-paid position.
Prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, immigration judges were covered by the GS pay system. Before the statute was enacted, the Department of Justice was able to offer pay retention to an SES member who moved to an IJ position as a result of a management action, as described above. However, section 371 of the Act removed IJs from the GS pay system and established a unique IJ pay system with a top rate set at 92 percent of the rate of basic pay for SES level ES-5. As a result of the Act, immigration judges are no longer under a “covered pay system” and therefore are no longer eligible for pay retention. Because the statutory maximum IJ pay rate is less than the rates of pay for ES-5 and ES-6, an SES member who moves to an IJ position without pay retention could suffer a significant loss in pay. The inability to grant pay retention to employees who move between noncovered pay systems has deprived the Department of Justice of a needed degree of flexibility.
At the request of the Department of Justice, we reviewed this issue and determined that we have authority under the law to extend grade and pay retention to employees who move to or within noncovered pay schedules. Under 5 U.S.C. 5365(b)(2), OPM is authorized to apply “all or portions” of the grade and pay retention provisions to “individuals to whom such provisions do not otherwise apply.” We further concluded that it would be appropriate as a matter of policy to amend our regulations to provide agencies with discretionary authority to grant pay retention to employees moving to or within noncovered pay schedules. Since these other pay schedules are generally not administered by OPM, we concluded that any use of the pay retention authority in these circumstances should be discretionary. We note that, under some circumstances, grade and pay retention benefits are already subject to an agency's discretion. (See 5 CFR 536.103(b) and 536.104(b).)
We concluded that this extension should not apply to grade retention, since that benefit was designed specifically for retention of grades under the GS and FWS pay systems. As explained above, the law allows OPM to selectively apply portions of the grade and pay retention provisions. Under current regulations, grade retention does not apply to members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) or employees in senior-level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376 (SL/ST) even if they move to a covered pay schedule. (See 5 CFR 536.105(c).) However, the current regulations are silent regarding grade retention for administrative law judges (ALJs). Thus, it is possible for an ALJ who moves to a GS-14 position because of a management action to have GS-15 established as a retained grade. For consistency, we are proposing to amend the regulations to provide that grade retention does not apply to any employee who moves from, between, or within non-GS/FWS schedules—including the pay schedules for SES members, SL/ST positions, ALJs, and IJs.
We are proposing that the normal rules for adjusting a retained rate not be applied to employees covered by a regulatory extension of pay retention under 5 U.S.C. 5365(b) who are not in a GS or FWS position while receiving pay retention, or who are in a GS or FWS position but receiving a retained rate in excess of the maximum rate of the applicable basic pay schedule (GS or FWS). Under the normal rules, a GS or FWS employee's retained rate is adjusted by 50 percent of the dollar increase in the maximum rate for the employee's grade. However, other pay systems may not have the same type of grade-based pay structure or are subject to different annual pay adjustments.
For example, many senior-level pay schedules are linked to the Executive Schedule, which sometimes has not been adjusted on an annual basis. This can result in anomalous situations. If an SES member at the ES-2 level (currently $107,100) moves to a GS-15 position and receives a retained rate, that retained rate subsequently could be increased to a rate above the ES-2 rate in effect at some future date. (Note: Retained rates for GS employees are capped at the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule, which limits this problem; however, agencies are required to adjust and maintain the “retained rate of record” without regard to the level V cap.) We are proposing to exercise our authority under 5 U.S.C. 5365(b) not to apply the retained rate adjustment portion of the statutory pay retention provisions for the categories of employees described above. Thus, these employees' retained rates would be frozen with no provision for any pay adjustment.
These proposed regulations would not impair any agency's independent authority to fix pay for employees under a pay schedule administered by that agency. The proposed extension of the pay retention provisions would be relevant only if the agency lacks any other authority to establish a saved rate for its employees. For example, the Department of Justice does not have authority to create a saved rate under the IJ pay system based on the former rate received by an SES member. The proposed regulations would allow the Department of Justice, at its discretion, to extend pay retention to an SES member moving to an IJ position. To be entitled to pay retention, an employee must also meet all other qualifying conditions (
To effect the policy change proposed here, we propose to add a new paragraph (d) to § 536.104 to give agencies discretionary authority to provide pay retention to any otherwise eligible Federal “employee,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105. The definition of
We also propose to revise § 536.205(c) to provide that an employee who moves from a noncovered pay schedule to a statutorily covered pay schedule and who receives a retained rate in excess of the maximum rate of the statutorily covered pay schedule is not entitled to any increase in basic pay when there is an increase in the scheduled rates. In addition, to clarify and simplify the regulations, we propose to delete the language in the existing § 536.205(g), which we believe is unnecessary in view of other provisions found elsewhere in parts 531, 532 and 536.
Instead, we propose to revise § 536.205(g) to address how the rules for administering a retained rate apply to employees under an administratively covered pay schedule who were granted pay retention under § 536.104(d). Specifically, the proposed change provides that the retained rate of such an employee will be frozen and that the regular or normal rate to which the employee otherwise would be entitled (but for pay retention) must be treated as a single-rate range in applying paragraphs (b) and (d) of that section, including the provisions governing the 150 percent cap established by 5 U.S.C. 5363(b)(2).
As noted above, eligibility for grade and pay retention is subject to certain exclusions, as provided in 5 CFR 536.105. Paragraph (a)(1) of that section bars grade or pay retention for employees who move from a position that is not in an “agency” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 5102. This definition of “agency,” which is located in paragraph (a) of section 5102, is used to exclude employees in certain agencies from coverage under the GS classification and pay system. Other employees are excluded from the GS system if they fall under one of the categories of employees listed in paragraph (c) of section 5102 or if they are excluded by some other provision of law.
The exclusion in § 536.105(a)(1) is not statutory, but reflects a limitation OPM imposed simultaneous with the regulatory extension of grade and pay retention eligibility to employees moving to a covered pay schedule from a noncovered pay schedule. Recently OPM approved a variation to § 536.105(a)(1) at the request of the Department of Defense (DOD). (See Notice of OPM Variation, Notice No. 99-47, November 3, 1999.) While DOD is a covered agency under 5 U.S.C. 5102, several DOD subcomponents are expressly excluded from the definition of “agency” in 5 U.S.C. 5102(a)—namely, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Therefore, employees in these subcomponents are barred by § 536.105(a)(1) from receiving grade and pay retention upon movement to a covered pay schedule. DOD requested that OPM approve a variation to 5 CFR 536.105(a)(1) to allow otherwise eligible employees who move to GS or FWS positions from positions in these DOD subcomponents to receive grade or pay retention, even though these DOD subcomponents are excluded from the definition of an “agency” in 5 U.S.C. 5102(a). OPM agreed that a variation was warranted to ensure equal treatment of DOD employees.
Upon further consideration, we believe that the provision in § 536.105(a)(1) barring grade or pay retention for employees who move from a position that is not is an agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 5102 should be removed altogether. The current rule results in inequitable treatment of employees by providing different benefits based on the specific method used to exclude an employee from coverage under the GS system. For pay retention purposes, we believe it should not matter whether an employee is excluded from the GS system under paragraph (a) or (c) of 5 U.S.C. 5102 or under some other provision of law. Therefore, we propose to remove the existing paragraph (a)(1) from § 536.105. This will extend pay retention eligibility to certain categories of non-GS employees. (Grade retention is not at issue, since we are already proposing to
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would only apply to Federal agencies and employees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend part 536 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 536 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5361-5366; sec. 7202(f) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508), 104 Stat. 1338-336; sec. 4 of the Performance Management and Recognition System Termination Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-89), 107 Stat. 981; § 536.307 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552, Freedom of Information Act, Pub. L. 92-502.
2. In § 536.102, the definition of
3. In § 536.104, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
(d) The head of an agency may apply the pay retention provisions of this part to an individual not under a statutorily covered pay schedule (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 5361) whose rate of basic pay would otherwise be reduced as the result of a management action, provided that individual is an employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 (excluding an official in or moving from an Executive Schedule position). Coverage is subject to all other qualifying conditions and limitations established in this part.
4. In § 536.105, paragraph (a)(1) is removed, paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5) are redesignated as (a)(1) through (a)(4), respectively, and paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
(c) Grade retention under § 536.103 does not apply to an employee who—
(1) Moves to a position not under a statutorily covered pay schedule; or
(2) Moves from a position not under a statutorily covered pay schedule to a position under a statutorily covered pay schedule.
5. Section 536.203 is revised to read as follows:
An employee who is in a position under a statutorily covered pay schedule immediately prior to the action that gives entitlement to grade retention shall retain the grade held immediately prior to the action.
6. In § 536.205, paragraphs (c) and (g) are revised to read as follows:
(c) When an increase in the scheduled rates of the grade of the employee's position occurs while the employee is under pay retention, the employee is entitled to 50 percent of the amount of the increase in the maximum rate of basic pay payable for the grade of the employee's current position. This paragraph does not apply to employees who move from a noncovered pay schedule to a statutorily covered pay schedule and who are receiving a retained rate in excess of the maximum payable rate of the applicable covered pay schedule.
(g) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, for an employee who is not in a position under a statutorily covered pay schedule while receiving a retained rate (as allowed by § 536.104(d))—
(1) The retained rate is compared to the rate of basic pay that otherwise would apply to the employee but for the retained rate (instead of comparing it to the maximum rate of the rate range for the employee's position) and is terminated when the retained rate falls below the employee's otherwise applicable rate;
(2) The retained rate is capped at 150 percent of the rate of basic pay that otherwise would apply to the employee but for the retained rate (instead of 150 percent of the maximum rate of the rate range for the employee's position); and
(3) The retained rate is frozen and may not be increased.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Supplemental proposed rule.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is proposing to amend its regulations to update the criteria for determining “reasonably adequate service” levels for local exchange carriers and providers of specialized telecommunications service. This supplemental proposed rule is part of an ongoing RUS project to modernize agency policies in order to provide borrowers with the flexibility to continue providing reliable, modern telephone service at reasonable costs in rural areas, while maintaining the security and feasibility of the Government's loans.
Written comments on this supplemental proposed rule must be received by RUS by or carry a postmark or equivalent of June 26, 2000.
Submit written comments on this supplemental proposed rule to Roberta D. Purcell, Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications
Jonathan P. Claffey, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4056, STOP 1590, Washington, DC 20250-1590. Telephone: (202) 720-9556.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of that Executive Order. In addition, all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and in accordance with section 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912(e)) administrative appeal procedures, if any are required, must be exhausted prior to initiating litigation against the Department or its agencies.
RUS has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens, under OMB control number 0572-0079 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Send questions or comments regarding this burden or any other aspect of these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to F. Lamont Heppe, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4034, STOP 1522, Washington, DC 20250-1522.
The Administrator of RUS has determined that this proposed rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The program described by this proposed rule is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs under numbers 10.851, Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees, and 10.852, Rural Telephone Bank Loans. This catalog is available on a subscription basis from the Superintendent of Documents, the United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325. Telephone: (202) 512-1800.
This program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require consultation with State and local officials. See the final rule related notice entitled “Department Programs and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372,” (50 FR 47034).
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The telecommunications industry is becoming increasingly competitive. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104) and regulatory actions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are drastically altering the regulatory and business environment of all telecommunications systems, including RUS borrowers. At the same time, changes in overall business trends and technologies continue to place pressure on RUS-financed systems to offer a wider array of services and to operate more efficiently.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates that universally available and affordable telecommunications services, including advanced services, be made available to all US citizens—whether in rural areas or city centers, affluent or poor communities. RUS supports this mandate and the goal that, with the assistance of advanced telecommunications technology, rural citizens be provided the same economic, educational, and health care benefits available in the larger metropolitan areas. RUS believes that the most expeditious way to bring the full range of telephone services to rural areas is to make certain providers of advanced services, in addition to providers of local exchange services, eligible for RUS financing.
RUS regulations currently contain criteria for RUS to consider in determining whether telecommunications service is reasonably adequate (7 CFR 1735.12(c), Nonduplication). However, these criteria do not recognize certain technological and other factors that are currently employed to determine adequate service. RUS is proposing separate criteria for local exchange carriers and providers of specialized telecommunications service. These revised criteria for determining “reasonably adequate service” are derived primarily from RUS policies related to telecommunications carriers generally, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and FCC rules and regulations.
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, all incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) are automatically considered eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). An ETC is certified by the regulatory commission having jurisdiction, which makes it eligible to receive universal service support. Each State regulatory commission will name at least one ETC for every area. In return for universal service support, the ETC must make available an FCC-specified level of service throughout a designated area. Furthermore, an ETC must agree to advertise basic services in a specific area and offer service to everyone in that area.
If a LEC that has not previously borrowed from RUS applies for financing, RUS is proposing to lend only to those LECs that are ETCs within the State or tribal jurisdiction in which their financed facilities are to be located, LECs that have made commitments, satisfactory to RUS, to become ETCs, or LECs that commits to act as ETCs with respect to the area coverage requirements as described in § 1735.11. ETCs are eligible for universal service support and have accepted the obligations of being an ETC. ETC status, therefore, both enhances loan feasibility and promotes area wide coverage.
The Governor of RTB utilizes RUS policies in carrying out RTB's loan program. Therefore, these policy revisions would apply to loans made by RTB, as well.
RUS proposed amending certain provisions of 7 CFR part 1735 in a Proposed Rule published on February 11, 2000 at 65 FR 6922. Subsequently, RUS continued to review and analyze the rapidly developing telecommunications environment and decided to propose further revisions of certain provisions of 7 CFR part 1735, including portions of §§ 1735.2, 1735.10(c), 1735.12, and 1735.14 as published on February 2, 2000. RUS requests comments on all provisions published in this Supplemental Proposed Rule. Those proposed amendments published first on February 11, 2000, but revised again by this supplement will be subject to the procedures, including those concerning public comments, applicable hereto.
Accounting, Loan programs—communications, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Telephone.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR chapter XVII is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1735 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 901
2. In § 1735.2, as proposed to be amended February 11, 2000, at 65 FR 6923, revise the definition of Mobile telecommunications service and add the following definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows:
3. Revise § 1735.10(c), as proposed to be revised February 11, 2000, at 65 FR 6923, to read as follows:
(c) A borrower receiving a loan to provide mobile telecommunications services or special telecommunications services shall be considered to be participating in the state telecommunications plan (TMP) with respect to the particular loan so long as the loan funds are not used in a manner that, in RUS' opinion, is inconsistent with the borrower achieving the goals set forth in the plan, except that a borrower must comply with any portion of a TMP made applicable to the borrower by a state commission with jurisdiction.
4. In § 1735.12, as proposed to be amended at 65 FR 6923, revise paragraph (c) and add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
(c) RUS shall consider the following criteria for any wireline local exchange service or similar fixed-station voice service provided by a local exchange carrier (LEC) in determining whether such service is reasonably adequate:
(1) The LEC is providing area coverage as described in § 1735.11.
(2) The LEC is providing all one-party service or, if the State commission has mandated a lower grade of service, the LEC is eliminating that service in accordance with the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151
(3) The LEC's network is capable of providing transmission and reception of data at a rate of at least 1,000,000 bits per second (1 Mbps) with reasonable modification to any subscriber who requests it.
(4) The LEC makes available custom calling features (at a minimum, call waiting, call forwarding, abbreviated dialing, and three-way calling).
(5) The LEC is able to provide E911 service to all subscribers, when requested by the government entity responsible for this service.
(6) The LEC is able to offer local service with blocked toll access to those subscribers who request it.
(7) The LEC's network is capable of accommodating Internet access at speeds of at least 28,800 bits per second (28.8 Kbps) via modem dial-up from any subscriber location.
(8) There is an absence of frequent service interruptions.
(9) The LEC is interconnected with the public switched network.
(10) No Federal or State regulatory commission having jurisdiction has determined that the quality, availability, or reliability of the service provided is inadequate.
(11) Services are provided at reasonably affordable rates.
(12) Any other criteria the Administrator determines to be applicable to the particular case.
(f) RUS shall consider the following criteria for any provider of a specialized telecommunications service in determining whether such service is reasonably adequate:
(1) The provider of a specialized telecommunications service is providing area coverage as described in § 1735.11.
(2) An adequate signal strength is provided throughout the largest practical portion of the service area.
(3) There is an absence of frequent service interruptions.
(4) The quality and variety of service provided is comparable to that provided in nonrural areas.
(5) The service provided complies with industry standards.
(6) No Federal, State, or local regulatory commission having jurisdiction has determined that the quality, availability, or reliability of the service provided is inadequate.
(7) Services are provided at reasonably affordable rates.
(8) Any other criteria the Administrator determines to be applicable to the particular case.
5. In § 1735.14, as proposed to be amended at 65 FR 6924, remove “and” at the end of paragraph (c)(1), remove the period at the end of paragraph (c)(2) and add “; and” in its place, and add new paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) If a local exchange carrier, must be either an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) within the State or tribal jurisdiction in which the RUS-financed facilities are to be located, a LEC that has made a commitment, satisfactory to RUS, to become an ETC within the State or tribal jurisdiction in which the financed facilities are to be located, or a LEC that commits to act as an ETC in such a manner as to meet the area coverage requirements as described in § 1735.11.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is proposing to amend its regulations to reflect the changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) made by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments Act of 1996 (1996 Act) and to revise the method of computing fees. The proposal provides for: electronic FOIA requests; access to records published or released under FOIA in electronic format; expedited processing of FOIA requests upon a showing of compelling need; publication of responses to FOIA requests that are likely to become repeat requests; aggregation of clearly related requests by a single requester or group of requesters acting in concert; informing the requester of the volume of requested material withheld and the extent of deletions both in publicly available records and records released in response to a FOIA request; and a method for computing fees that is based upon the classification of the employee performing the work as executive, professional, or clerical.
Written comments regarding the proposed rulemaking must be received by July 24, 2000.
All comments concerning the proposed rule should be addressed to Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street NW, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20552. Alternatively, comments may be submitted via electronic mail to:
Dorothy J. Acosta, Associate General Counsel, 1700 G Street NW, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20552, telephone (202) 414-6924 (not a toll-free number). The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339.
On December 23, 1998, OFHEO issued a final rule governing the release of information to the public, which, among other things, implemented the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 63 FR 70998, Dec. 23, 1998. At the time of the publication of the final regulation, OFHEO noted that Congress had enacted the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (1996 Act)
The proposal would also revise the way fees are determined for personnel costs involved in processing a request. Currently, an hourly rate for actual time spent searching, reviewing, and duplicating is determined by the salary of the particular employee performing the work plus 16% of that amount to reflect the cost of benefits. In order to simplify the calculation of fees and provide a more transparent and predictable fee schedule for requesters, OFHEO proposes a method for computing fees that would charge one of three hourly rates for personnel costs associated with responding to a request, depending on whether the employee performing the work is classified as executive, professional, or clerical. An average of the actual compensation (salary and benefits) of all employees of OFHEO in a particular classification would determine the actual hourly fee for that classification. These fees would be adjusted periodically to reflect significant changes in average compensation. The current fee schedule would be available on OFHEO's website (
The definition of “record” in § 1710.2(j) would be amended by inserting the phrase “regardless of form or format,” to clarify that a record may be electronic in form.
Subpart B contains general provisions relating to disclosure of documents and information in the possession of OFHEO. Section 1710.7(c) provides that if a requested record is available through routine distribution procedures, OFHEO will first refer the requester to those sources, and only if the requester is not satisfied will OFHEO treat the request as a FOIA request. The proposed regulation adds the OFHEO website, (
Section 1710.11 of subpart C provides, generally, for the release of OFHEO records. Paragraph (a) of this section addresses the release of records in response to requests and paragraph (b) addresses records required to be made publicly available, including current indexes to such records. The proposed regulation separates the provisions of existing § 1710.11 that relate to records required to be made publicly available pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) from those that relate to the release of records upon request and relocates provisions related to records required to be made publicly available to § 1710.12. The existing provisions of § 1710.12 would be deleted, because they are made unnecessary by other amendments to the regulation. Specific changes to the existing text of §§ 1710.11 and 1710.12 are explained more fully below.
Section 1710.11(a) would be amended to incorporate the substance of § 1710.11(c), which addresses copying costs, and to state that records will be made available in the form or format requested provided they are readily reproducible in that form or format with reasonable effort. “Readily reproducible” is defined to mean, with respect to electronic format, that the requested record or records can be downloaded or transferred intact to a computer disk, or other electronic medium using equipment currently in use by OFHEO.
Section 1710.11(b), which addresses records required to be made publicly available under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), would be redesignated as § 1710.12(a) and amended to: (1) Incorporate the substance of § 1710.11(c) addressing copying costs; (2) state that all publicly available documents are available by mail; (3) state that records created after November 1, 1996, including current indexes to all publicly available records regardless of when created, will be available on OFHEO's website; and (4) add to the list of records publicly available, copies of records that have been released under the FOIA that OFHEO believes are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records.
Section 1710.11(c), which relates to copying charges, would be deleted and its substance incorporated in §§ 1710.11(a) and 1710.12(a).
Section 1710.11(d), which sets forth FOIA exemptions, would then be redesignated as § 1710.11(b). This allows the regulatory designation for exemptions to be consistent with the statutory designation (
Section 1710.11(e) would be redesignated as § 1710.1(c).
Section 1710.11(f) would be redesignated as § 1710.11(d) and would be amended to require that the amount of any information deleted from a record released under FOIA be indicated on the released portion of the record (at the place the deletion is made, if technically feasible).
Section 1710.11(g), which relates to permissible deletions in publicly available records, would be redesignated as § 1710.12(b) and amended to state that the extent of any deletions necessary to protect personal privacy will be indicated on the records that are publicly available under redesignated § 1710.12(a), at the place where the deletion is made if technically feasible, unless including the indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption on which the deletion is based.
Section (h) would be redesignated as § 1710.11(e).
Section 1710.12(a) currently states that the indexes that are required to be made available for public inspection and copying under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) are available for inspection and copying at OFHEO's offices during regular business hours. This existing provision would be deleted because it is duplicative of the introductory language of existing § 1710.11(b), which would be redesignated as § 1710.12(a) and amended as described above. The heading of § 1710.12 would be revised to read “Publicly Available Records.”
Section 1710.12(b) currently contains the Director's determination that, because of the lack of requests to date for records required to be indexed, such indexes do not need to be published quarterly. It states, however, that the indexes will be provided by mail upon request. Because OFHEO proposes to publish current indexes on its website, this finding is unnecessary and would be deleted. The statement that current indexes are available by mail would be relocated to § 1710.12(a).
Section 1710.13 would be amended to permit requests to be made by facsimile or electronic mail and to require that the request include the submitter's name, address and telephone number, to enable the FOIA Officer to contact the requester about the request in the event that clarification is needed.
Section 1710.14(c) would be amended to state that OFHEO is not required to create a record to respond to a request, replacing a statement that OFHEO will not create a record. While normally OFHEO will not create a record to respond to a request, there may be some circumstances in which it is easier to create a record than to redact a record or records in which the requested information is contained.
Section 1710.15, which prescribes the form and content of FOIA responses, would be amended by adding a
Section 1710.16 sets forth the process for appeal of denials. Paragraph (a) would be amended to clarify that the appeal procedures also apply to denials of requests for expedited processing. Paragraph (b) would be amended to permit appeals to be submitted electronically or by facsimile. Paragraph (g), which sets forth the right to judicial review, currently states that a requester will be deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies if an administrative appeal has been denied or has not been acted on within 20 days of receipt. This paragraph would be amended to state that if OFHEO provides the requester an opportunity to limit the scope of the request or arrange an alternate time for processing the request, the requester's refusal to do either will be considered a factor in determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist. A showing of exceptional circumstances and due diligence on the part of the agency allows a court in which judicial review is sought to grant a stay to allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the records.
Section 1710.17 of the existing rule describes the time limits within which OFHEO will respond to initial requests and appeals of denials of requests. Paragraph (b) would be amended to state that appeals of denials of expedited processing will be acted on as expeditiously as practicable. Paragraph (c) would be amended by providing that if OFHEO extends the time limit stated in that paragraph and is unable to process the request by the date specified in the notice, OFHEO will offer the requester an opportunity to limit the scope of the request or arrange an alternate time frame for processing the request or a modified request. A new paragraph (d) would be added that provides for aggregating multiple requests involving clearly related matters made by a single requester, or group of requesters acting in concert, when such requests would, if considered as a single request, constitute an “unusual circumstance” justifying an extension of the response time. A new paragraph (e) would be added that provides for expedited processing upon a showing of compelling need by the requester and in such other cases as OFHEO may determine. A request for expedited processing must be accompanied by a statement, certified to be true and correct by the requester, that demonstrates compelling need. To show compelling need, the requester's statement must demonstrate that failure to obtain the requested records could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual, or, in the case of a requester whose main professional occupation or activity is the dissemination of information, that there is urgency to inform the public of the government activity involved in the request beyond the public's right to know of government activity generally. The requester must be notified within 10 working days of the disposition of the request, and any appeal of the denial must be acted on expeditiously.
Subpart D sets forth the fees that will be assessed for services rendered in responding to and processing requests for records under the FOIA. The definition of “direct costs” in § 1710.21(b) would be amended to include the costs of any automated searches and the cost of securing any contract services that may be necessary to respond to a FOIA request. To reflect the revised fee schedule set forth in the amended section 1710.22(b), a reference to that section is substituted for the reference to the actual salary of the person performing the work as a basis for the fees charged.
Section 1710.21(f) would be amended by adding a requirement that the copy of the requested record be provided in the form or format requested, provided it is readily reproducible in that form or format with reasonable effort.
Section 1710.22 would be revised to reflect a new method for computing fees and to make minor technical changes to better accommodate the changes made in response to the 1996 Act. Instead of basing the fee on the actual salary rate of the employee performing the work plus 16% for benefits, OFHEO proposes to charge one of three hourly fees determined by whether the employee performing the work is classified as executive, professional, or clerical. The fee for each category would be determined by the average of the actual salaries and benefits of the employees in that category and would be adjusted periodically to reflect significant changes in average compensation of the class. The “executive” category refers to the senior management of the agency (
Technical changes to § 1710.22 include substituting “computer equipment” for “central processing unit” and changing the heading in § 1710.22(b)(2) from “Duplication” to “Reproduction” to clarify that the paragraph applies both to duplicating a record in the same format and to reproducing a record in a different format, and by changing the word “reproduction” to “photocopied” in the first sentence to clarify that the per page charge applies only to photocopies of records. Conforming changes are made in § 1710.23.
Throughout the regulation, minor, nonsubstantive syntactical changes are made in the revised sections and citations to sections of the Freedom of Information Act are replaced with citations to the sections of the regulation containing the relevant statutory provisions. Citations to 5 U.S.C. 552 are replaced with “the Freedom of Information Act.” These changes will allow the reader to understand the regulatory provisions without referring to the statute.
Executive Order 13132 requires that Executive departments and agencies identify regulatory actions that have significant federalism implications. A regulation has federalism implications if it has substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of Government. OFHEO has determined that this rule has no federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment in accordance with Executive Order 13132.
OMB has determined that rulemakings that amend FOIA regulations to implement the requirements of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of l996 are not “significant” regulations for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988 sets forth guidelines to promote the just and efficient resolution of civil claims and to reduce the risk of litigation to the Federal Government. This final rule meets the applicable standards of sections 3(a) and (b) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Consequently, the rule does not warrant the preparation of an assessment statement in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
OFHEO has considered the impact of the regulation under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The General Counsel has certified that this final rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, requires that regulations involving the collection of information receive clearance from OMB. This rule contains no such collection of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consequently, no information has been submitted to OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Electronic products, Freedom of information.
Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, OFHEO proposes to amend 12 CFR part 1710 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1710 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4522, 4526, 4639; E.O. 12600; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235.
2. Amend § 1710.2(j) by adding “, regardless of form or format,” after “document”.
3. Amend the first sentence of § 1710.7(c) by adding “or material offered on OFHEO's website (
4. Revise § 1710.11 to read as follows:
(a) OFHEO shall, upon a written request for records that reasonably describes the information or records and is made in accordance with the provisions of this subpart, make the records available as promptly as practicable to any person for inspection and/or copying, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. OFHEO may charge a fee determined in accordance with subpart D of this part. OFHEO will make the record available in the form or format requested if the record is readily reproducible in that form or format with reasonable effort. “Readily reproducible” means, with respect to electronic format, that the requested record or records can be downloaded or transferred intact to a computer disk, tape, or other electronic medium using equipment currently in use by OFHEO.
(b)
(1) Any record, or portion thereof, that is—
(i) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and
(ii) Is in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.
(2) Any record, or portion thereof, related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of OFHEO.
(3) Any record, or portion thereof that is specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552b), provided that such statute—
(i) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or
(ii) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.
(4) Any matter that is a trade secret or that constitutes commercial or financial information obtained from a person and that is privileged or confidential.
(5) Any matter contained in inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that would not be available by law to a private party in litigation with OFHEO.
(6) Any information contained in personnel and medical files and similar files (including financial files) the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(7) Any records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information—
(i) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(ii) Would deprive a person of a right to fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(iv) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution or an Enterprise regulated and examined by OFHEO that furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record of information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source;
(v) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or
(vi) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
(8) Any matter that is contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports that are prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of OFHEO.
(9) Any geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
(c) Even if an exemption described in paragraph (b) of this section may be reasonably applicable to a requested record, or portion thereof, OFHEO may elect under the circumstances of any particular request not to apply the exemption to such requested record, or portion thereof. The fact that the exemption is not applied by OFHEO to any requested record, or portion thereof, has no precedential significance as to the application or nonapplication of the exemption to any other requested record, or portion thereof, no matter when the request is received.
(d) Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person properly requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subpart. The amount of the information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in paragraph (b) of this section pursuant to which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information deleted shall be indicated at the place in the record where the deletion is made.
(e) This section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated in this section. This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress.
5. Revise § 1710.12 to read as follows:
(a) The records described in this paragraph are available for public inspection and copying, for a fee determined in accordance with subpart D of this part, at OFHEO's offices located at 1700 G Street, NW, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20552. Records created on or after November 1, 1996, and current indexes to all records described in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section, including those created before November 1, 1996, are available electronically at
(1) Any final opinions issued by OFHEO, as well as orders made in adjudication of cases as set forth in § 1710.9 of subpart B of this part;
(2) Any statements of policy and interpretation that have been adopted by OFHEO and have not been published in the
(3) Any OFHEO administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public, and that are not exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act;
(4) Copies of all records released pursuant to this subpart that OFHEO determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and
(5) Current indexes to the records described in this paragraph.
(b) To the extent necessary to prevent an invasion of personal privacy, the Director may delete identifying details from a record described in paragraph (a) of this section. In each case of such deletion, the justification will be clearly explained in writing and the extent of such deletion indicated (at the place in the record where the deletion is made if technically feasible), unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in § 1710.11(b) pursuant to which the deletion is made.
6. Revise § 1710.13(a) to read as follows:
(a)
7. Amend § 1710.14(c) by removing “will not” and adding “is not required to” in its place in the last sentence.
8. Amend § 1710.15(b) by redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) as (b)(3) and (b)(4) respectively, and adding a new paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) An estimate of the volume of any requested matter that is withheld, unless providing the estimate would harm an interest protected by the exemption in § 1710.11 (b) pursuant to which the denial was made;
9. Amend § 1710.16 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(d)
10. Revise § 1710.17 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Search for and collect the requested records from facilities that are separate from the office processing the request;
(2) Search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or
(3) Consult with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or consult with various offices within OFHEO that have a substantial interest in the records requested.
(d)
(e)
(2) To show a compelling need for expedited processing, the requester shall provide a statement demonstrating that:
(i) The failure to obtain the requested records could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
(ii) The requester's main professional occupation or activity is information dissemination and there is a particular urgency to inform the public of government activity involved in the request beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally.
(3) The requester's statement of compelling need must be certified to be true and correct to the best of his or her knowledge and belief and must explain in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing. The formality of the certification required to obtain expedited treatment may be waived by OFHEO in its discretion.
(4) A requester seeking expedited processing will be notified within ten (10) working days of the receipt of the request whether expedited processing has been granted. If the request for expedited processing is denied, OFHEO will act on any appeal expeditiously.
11. Amend § 1710.18 as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1), remove “Exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)'' and add in its place “§ 1710.11(b)(4)”.
b. In paragraph (c), remove “Exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)” and add in its place “§ 1710.11(b)(4)”.
c. In paragraph (d)(2), remove “5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)” and add in its place “§ 1710.11(b)(4)”.
d. In paragraph (e)(1), remove “5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)” and add in its place “§ 1710.11(b)(4)”.
e. In paragraph (i)(3), remove “5 U.S.C. 552” and add in its place “the Freedom of Information Act”.
12. Amend § 1710.21 by revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as follows:
(b)
(f)
13. Revise § 1710.22 to read as follows:
(a) Generally, the fees charged for requests for records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act will cover the full allowable direct costs of searching for, reproducing, and reviewing records that are responsive to a request for information. Fees will be assessed according to the schedule contained in paragraph (b) of this section and the category of requesters described in § 1710.23 of this subpart for services rendered by OFHEO staff in responding to, and processing requests for, records under this part. Fees
(b)
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
14. Amend § 1710.23 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
(g) For purposes of paragraph (e) of this section, the term “search time” has as its basis, manual search. To apply this term to searches made by computer, OFHEO will determine the hourly cost of operating the computer equipment and the operator's time determined as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of § 1710.22. When the cost of the search (including the operator's time and the cost of operating the computer equipment to process a request) equals the equivalent dollar amount of two hours of the time of the person performing the work,
15. Amend § 1710.38 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This notice proposes to modify the Wenatchee, WA, Class E airspace to remove the Fancher Field airspace exclusion at the Panghorn Memorial Airport, Wenatchee, WA.
Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2000.
Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manger, Airspace Branch, ANM-520, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 00-ANM-07, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Regional Chief Counsel for the Northwest Mountain Region at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours in the office of the Manger, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, at the address listed above.
Brian Durham, ANM-520.7, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 00-ANM-07, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98055-4056: telephone number: (425) 227-2527.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Airspace Branch, ANM-520, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interest in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) by modifying Class E airspace at Wenatchee, WA, in order to remove the Fancher Field airspace exclusion in the legal description for the Panghorn Memorial Airport, Wenatchee, WA. Fancher Field has been abandoned negating the requirement for it's Class E2 airspace exclusion. This airspace modification would delete the airspace requirement for Fanche Field and correct the legal description for Wenatchee, WA. The FAA establishes Class E airspace where necessary to contain aircraft transitioning between the terminal and en route environments. The intended effect of this proposal is designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This proposal would promote safe flight operations under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at the Wenatchee Airport and between the terminal and en route transition stages.
The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth, are published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9G dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only invokes an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, is amended as follows:
Within a 4 mile radius of Panghorn Memorial Airport, and within a 2.7 miles each side of the Wenatchee VOR/DME 124° radial extending from the 4-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the VOR/DME.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Minnesota has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These changes include granting the State authority for the wood preserving rules, petroleum refinery sludge listings, and technical amendments to existing regulations. EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Minnesota. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Send your written comments by June 26, 2000.
Send written comments referring to Docket Number Minnesota ARA 8, to Gary Westefer, Minnesota Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, DM-7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7450. Please refer to Docket Number MN ARA 8. You can examine copies of the materials submitted by Minnesota during normal business hours at the following locations: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road, North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, contact Nathan Cooley (651) 297-7544, and EPA Region 5, contact Gary Westefer, Minnesota Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, DM-7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7450.
Gary Westefer at the above address and phone number.
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Ling Broadcasting requesting the allotment of Channel 248C3 to Sterling, Colorado, as that locality's third local FM transmission service. Coordinates used for this proposal are 40-37-32 NL and 103-12-25 WL.
Comments must be filed on or before June 26, 2000, and reply comments on or before July 11, 2000.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: A. Wray Fitch, III, Esq., Gamon & Grange, P.C., 8280 Greensboro Drive, 7th Floor, McLean, VA 22102-3807.
Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-74, adopted April 26, 2000, and released May 5, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by New West Broadcasting requesting the allotment of Channel 223C2 to Kahului, HI, as that community's second local FM transmission service. Coordinates used for this proposal are 20-50-24 NL and 156-23-14 WL.
Comments must be filed on or before June 26, 2000, and reply comments on or before July 11, 2000.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: New West Broadcasting, c/o Robin B. Thomas, President, 1001 Weatherby Drive, Cheyenne, WY 82007.
Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-75, adopted April 26, 2000, and released May 5, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Logan and Company requesting the allotment of Channel 255A to Hornbrook, California, as that locality's first local aural transmission service. As Hornbrook is not incorporated or listed in the U.S. Census, information is requested regarding the attributes of that locality to determine whether it is a
Comments must be filed on or before June 26, 2000, and reply comments on or before July 11, 2000.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: James A. Koerner, Esq., Koerner & Olender, P.C., 5809 Nicholson Lane, Suite 124, North Bethesda, MD 20852.
Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-73, adopted April 26, 2000, and released May 5, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; dismissal.
This document denies a petition for rule making filed by Medina Radio Broadcasting Company requesting the allotment of Channel 296A at Medina, Texas.
Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-237, adopted April 19, 2000, and released April 25, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.
Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA.
Proposed rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) proposes to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) by adding a new clause Tax Adjustment, and by revising the section GSAR contract clauses.
Comments should be submitted on or before July 24, 2000 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Interested parties should submit written comments to: General Services Administration, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4027, Washington, DC 20405.
Cecelia L. Davis, GSA Acquisition Policy Division, (202) 219-0202.
GSA proposes to amend the GSAR by revising Parts 552 and 570 to prescribe and to incorporate a new clause 552.270-30, Tax Adjustment. The clause will be incorporated in acquisitions of leasehold interest in real property when GSA determined that a tax adjustment is necessary.
This regulatory action was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993, and is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
GSA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the GSAR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or otherwise collect information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501
Government procurement.
Accordingly, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR Part 552 and 570 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 552 and 570 continues to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 486(c).
2. Section 552.270-30 is added to read as follows:
As prescribed in 570.603, inset the following clause:
(a)
“Full assessment,” as used in this clause, means that the taxing jurisdiction has considered all contemplated improvements to the assessed property in the valuation of the same. Partial assessments for newly constructed projects or for projects or for projects under construction, conversion, or renovation will not be used for establishing the Government's base year for taxes.
“Real estate taxes,” as used in this clause, mean only those taxes assessed against the building or the land on which the building is located, without regard to benefit to the property, for the purpose of funding general government services. Real estate taxes shall not include general or special assessments, business improvement district assessments, or any other present or future taxes or governmental charges imposed on Lessor or assessed against the building or the land upon which the building is located.
(b)
(1) Make a single annual lump sum payment to the Lessor for its share of any increase in real estate taxes during the lease term over the amount established as the base year taxes.
(2) Receive an annual rental credit or lump sum payment from the Lessor for its share of any decreases in real estate taxes during the lease term below the amount established as the base year taxes.
(c)
(1) Any notice which may affect the valuation of land and buildings covered by this lease for real estate tax purposes.
(2) Any notice of a tax credit or tax refund related to land and buildings covered by this lease.
(3) Each tax bill related to land and building covered by this lease.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(1) The Government shall be entitled to and shall receive a pro rata credit for the reduction in taxes, regardless of whether the Government has not yet made the tax payment for that year.
(2) During the lease term, the Government shall apply any credit as a deduction from the rent.
(3) For any credit due after the expiration or earlier termination of the lease, at the Contracting Officer's direction, the Lessor shall either make a lump sum payment to the Government or provide a rental credit under a succeeding lease. This includes, but is not limited to, credits resulting from a tax decrease pursuant to a tax credit due the Lessor, a reduction in the tax assessment, or a tax appeal proceeding for a year or a portion of the lease. If directed to remit a lump sum payment, the Lessor must make payment to the Government within fifteen (15) days of the Contracting Officer's direction. If the credit due the Government is not paid by the due date, interest shall accrue on the late payment at the rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury under Section 12 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 611) in effect on the day after the due date. The Government shall have the right to pursue the outstanding balance of any tax credit using all collection methods available to the United States to collect debts. Such collection rights survive the expiration of this lease.
(f)
(g)
3. Section 570.603 is amended by adding a new prescription at the end of the section to read as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hearings; request for comments.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene public hearings to receive comments on its proposed Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). Amendment 7 proposes to extend Florida's trap certificate program for the commercial stone crab fishery into Federal waters off the west coast of Florida. The objective of this program is to reduce, over time, the number of traps used in the fishery to an optimum number necessary to harvest the maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
The Council will accept written comments on the proposed amendment through June 26, 2000. The public hearings will be held in June. See
Written comments should be sent to Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33619. Copies of draft Amendment 7 are available from Mr. Wayne Swingle, Executive Director, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33619; telephone: 813-228-2815; fax: 813-769-4520. See
Mr. Wayne Swingle, Executive Director, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33619; telephone: 813-228-2815.
There are about 1.4 million stone crab traps off Florida; the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) estimates that it would take only 600,000 traps to take the MSY from this fishery. The FFWCC, after working with the stone crab industry and Council over the past 4 years, has adopted a rule, effective July 1, 2000, under which a State trap certificate program will gradually reduce the number of traps over a 30-year period. This is a certificate-based attrition program that “grandfathers” fishermen into the program with their present number of traps and then will reduce slowly the trap numbers to the optimum level by reducing the number of certificates whenever they are sold. The Florida Legislature recently authorized license and penalty fees for this certificate program.
Public hearings for Amendment 7 will be held at the following locations, dates, and times.
1. June 6, 2000, 7 p.m., Naples Depot Civic Cultural Center, 1051 Fifth Avenue South, Naples, Florida 34102; telephone: 941-262-1776.
2. June 7, 2000, 7 p.m., Banana Bay Resort & Marina, 4590 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050; telephone: 305-743-3500.
3. June 13, 2000, 7 p.m., Jaycee Building, 501 SE 7th Avenue, Crystal River, Florida 34429; telephone: 352-795-4217.
4. June 14, 2000, 7 p.m., Steinhatchee Elementary School, 1st Avenue South, Steinhatchee, Florida 32359; telephone: 352-498-3303.
The Council will also hear public testimony before taking final action on Amendment 7 on July 12, 2000, at its meeting in Key Largo, Florida.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council office (see
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announces a forthcoming meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
June 6, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and June 7, 2000, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time each day).
Hilton Crystal City at National Airport, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, Telephone: (703) 418-6800.
Keith Jones, Program Manager, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2945-So., Ag Stop 0268, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, Telephone: (202) 720-3252.
Section 2119 (7 U.S.C. 6518) of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. Section 6501
In August of 1994, the NOSB provided its initial recommendations for the National Organic Program (NOP) to the Secretary of Agriculture. Since that time the NOSB has submitted 30 addenda to its recommendations and reviewed more than 170 substances for inclusion on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. The last meeting of the NOSB was held on March 21-22, 2000, in Buena Park, California.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its re-proposed National Organic Program regulation in the
The principal purposes of this meeting are to provide an opportunity for the NOSB to receive committee reports; approve the NOSB's comment to the re-proposed National Organic Program regulation; vote on whether to recommend the addition of ethylene gas and amino acids to the National List; elect new officers of the NOSB; and receive an update regarding certification of aquatic animals from the USDA. Copies of the NOSB final meeting agenda can be requested from Mrs. Toni Strother, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2510-So., Ag Stop 0268, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456; by phone at (202) 720-3252; or by accessing the NOP website at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop after May 23, 2000.
This meeting is open to the public. The NOSB has scheduled time for public input on Tuesday, June 6, 2000, from 1:30 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. at the Hilton Crystal City at National Airport, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Telephone: (703) 418-6800. Individuals and organizations wishing to make an oral presentation at the meeting should forward the request to Mrs. Strother at the above address or by FAX to (202) 205-7808 by close of business June 2, 2000. While persons wishing to make a presentation may sign up at the door, advance registration will ensure an opportunity to speak during the allotted time period and will help the NOSB to better manage the meeting and accomplish its agenda. Individuals or organizations will be given approximately 5 minutes to present their views. All persons making an oral presentation are requested to provide their comments in writing, if possible. Written submissions may supplement the oral presentation with additional material. Written comments may be submitted to the NOSB at the meeting or to Mrs. Strother after the meeting at the above address.
Notice is hereby given that the application of the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, grantee of FTZ 193, requesting authority for special-purpose subzone status for the gelatin capsule manufacturing facilities of RP Scherer Corporation (Scherer) located in the St. Petersburg/Clearwater area, Pinellas County, Florida (65 FR 5308, 2/3/00), has been amended to expand the proposed use of zone procedures at the Scherer plant to include the manufacture of a new anti-AIDS drug, using foreign and domestic ingredients. The foreign ingredients include Lopinavir (HTSUS 2933.59.7000—9.3% duty rate). The finished product is classified under HTSUS 3004.70.9010 and is duty free. Scherer will be finishing and encapsulating the finished drug under contract for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.,
The application remains otherwise unchanged.
The comment period is reopened until June 26, 2000.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
May 25, 2000.
John Brinkmann or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 6, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4126 or 482-0984, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).
On February 4, 2000, the Department published the preliminary affirmative determination in the antidumping duty investigation on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from the Czech Republic, 65 FR 5599. On April 18, 2000, the petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of seamless pipe from the Czech Republic.
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.”
Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (
Because we are aware of the European Union's (EU's) November 17, 1997, finding that the Czech Republic had sold similar products (
In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the seamless pipe at less than fair value, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department's normal practice is to consider margins of 25 percent or more for export price (EP) sales sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping.
In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, under section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the International Trade Commission (ITC). If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports. In this case, the ITC has found that a reasonable indication of present material injury due to dumping exists for all imports of seamless pipe from the Czech Republic.
In determining whether there are “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volume of the subject merchandise for three months immediately preceding and following the filing of the petition. Imports normally will be considered massive
We do not have verifiable data from Nova Hut because it withdrew from verification. Therefore, the Department must base its “massive imports” determination as to the company on the facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.
Based on our determination that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports of the subject merchandise in the EU, as well as importer knowledge of dumping, and that there have been massive imports of seamless pipe from this producer over a relatively short period, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist for imports from the Czech Republic of seamless pipe produced by Nova Hut.
In regard to the “all others” category, it is the Department's normal practice to conduct its critical circumstances analysis based on the experience of investigated companies.
In the instant case, in our critical circumstances analysis for the one investigated company, Nova Hut, we determined that the EU's finding that the Czech Republic had sold similar products at less than fair value and had caused injury to the domestic industry provides reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in this case. Consistent with our practice, we similarly extend this finding to the “all others” category.
With respect to massive imports, however, we are unable to rely on our import level analysis for Nova Hut because it is based upon adverse facts available, and we have no verified data upon which to base a massive imports analysis. Instead, consistent with the approach taken in
In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of seamless pipe from the Czech Republic produced by Nova Hut, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 6, 1999, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication in the
We will make final critical circumstances determinations when we issue our final determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation, which is due to be made no later than June 19, 2000.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination.
This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce is conducting an antidumping duty investigation of Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic of China. We determine that sales have been made at less than fair value. The estimated dumping margins are shown in the Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.
May 25, 2000.
Rosa Jeong, Ryan Langan or Blanche Ziv, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3853, 482-1279, or 482-4207, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).
Since the preliminary determination (
On December 28, 1999, one of the respondents, Shandong Xinhua Pharmaceutical Factory (“Shandong”), requested a postponement of the final determination and, on January 4, 2000, requested an extension of provisional measures. On January 20, 2000, we published in the
Supplemental information regarding surrogate values was submitted on February 14, 2000, by the petitioner and respondents.
In February and March 2000, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by Shandong and Jilin Pharmaceutical Import and Export Corporation (“Jilin”). We issued reports on our findings of these verifications on April 5, 2000.
The petitioner and respondents filed case briefs and rebuttal briefs on April 12 and April 19, 2000, respectively. At the request of the petitioner and respondents, the Department held a public hearing on April 25, 2000.
We also received a case brief from Dastech International, Inc. (“Dastech”), an interested party in this investigation. After reviewing Dastech's comments, we determined that the information contained in Dastech's brief constituted factual information that was filed on an untimely basis as set forth in section 351.301 of the Department's regulations. Therefore, pursuant to section 351.302(d) of the Department's regulations, we removed Dastech's submission from the record, and did not consider the comments for the final determination.
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is bulk acetylsalicylic acid, commonly referred to as bulk aspirin, whether or not in pharmaceutical or compound form, not put up in dosage form (tablet, capsule, powders or similar form for direct human consumption). Bulk aspirin may be imported in two forms, as pure ortho-acetylsalicylic acid or as mixed ortho-acetylsalicylic acid. Pure ortho-acetylsalicylic acid can be either in crystal form or granulated into a fine powder (pharmaceutical form). This product has the chemical formula C
Mixed ortho-acetylsalicylic acid consists of ortho-acetylsalicylic acid combined with other inactive substances such as starch, lactose, cellulose, or coloring materials and/or other active substances. The presence of other active substances must be in concentrations less than that specified for particular nonprescription drug combinations of aspirin and active substances as published in the
The period of this investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999.
The Department has treated the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) as a nonmarket economy (“NME”) country in all past antidumping investigations.
The respondents in this investigation have not requested a revocation of the PRC's NME status and no further information has been provided that would lead to such a revocation. Therefore, we have continued to treat the PRC as an NME in this investigation.
Furthermore, no interested party has requested that the bulk aspirin industry in the PRC be treated as a market-oriented industry and no further information has been provided that would lead to such a determination. Therefore, we have not treated the bulk
All responding companies have requested separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In our
As stated in the preliminary determination, information on the record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous producers/exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC in addition to the companies participating in this investigation. U.S. import statistics show that the responding companies did not account for all imports of bulk aspirin into the United States from the PRC. Given this discrepancy, it appears that not all PRC exporters of bulk aspirin responded to our questionnaire. Accordingly, we are applying a single antidumping deposit rate (“the PRC-wide rate”) to all bulk aspirin exporters in the PRC except those specifically identified in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.
As explained in the preliminary determination, the PRC-wide antidumping rate is based on adverse facts available, in accordance with section 776 of the Act. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that “if an interested party or any other person— (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority or the Commission under this title, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.” Use of facts available is warranted in this case because the producers/exporters other than those under investigation have failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be used when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. The producers/exporters that decided not to respond in any form to the Department's questionnaire, failed to act to the best of their ability in this investigation. Further, absent a verifiable response from these firms, we must presume government control of these PRC companies. Thus, the Department has determined that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted and has assigned them a common, PRC-wide rate based on adverse inferences.
In accordance with our standard practice, as adverse facts available, we are assigning to the PRC-wide entity (
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” such as the petition, the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 (1994) (“SAA”), states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the May 17, 2000, Decision Memorandum which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. We have also corrected certain programming and clerical errors in our
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by respondents.
In accordance with section 735(c) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC, except for merchandise both produced and exported by Jilin (which had a zero margin at the
Customs shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise except for entries from exporters that are identified individually above.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
May 25, 2000.
Craig Matney (Republic of Korea) or Cynthia Thirumalai (Taiwan), Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1778 or (202) 482-4087, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).
The product covered by these orders is certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”). Certain polyester staple fiber is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to these orders may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) classified under the
The merchandise subject to these orders is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.40 and 5503.20.00.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of these orders is dispositive.
In accordance with section 735(a) of the Act, on March 30, 2000, the Department published the final determination of the antidumping duty investigation of certain PSF from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), in which we determined that U.S. sales of PSF from Korea were made at less than normal value (65 FR 16880 (“
We have determined in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act that ministerial errors were made in our final margin calculations. For a detailed
For Taiwan, we published
On May 15, 2000, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) notified the Department that an industry in the United States is “materially injured,” within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A) of the Act, by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of PSF from Korea and Taiwan. In its final determination, however, the ITC determined that two domestic like products exist for merchandise covered by the Department's investigation: (1) low-melt PSF and (2) all other types of PSF not specifically excluded. The ITC determined pursuant to section 735(b)(1) that a domestic industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of low-melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan. Accordingly, the scope of these antidumping duty orders has been amended from that used in the investigations to exclude low-melt PSF.
Sam Young and Geum Poong, the two respondents included in the Korea order, did not make sales of low-melt PSF during the period of investigation. Therefore, it was not necessary to recalculate the margins to exclude sales of low-melt PSF for these Korean respondents. However, we recalculated, for purposes of the Taiwan order, the estimated dumping margins for both respondents in Taiwan by excluding sales of low-melt PSF from our analysis. The revised estimated dumping margins for Taiwan are found below.
The Department will direct the U.S. Customs Service to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the subject merchandise exceeds the export price or constructed export price of the subject merchandise for all relevant entries of PSF from Korea and Taiwan, except for subject merchandise produced in Korea and imported from Samyang, which received a
For all other manufacturers/exporters from Korea, antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of PSF, excluding low-melt PSF, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 8, 1999, the date of publication of the Department's preliminary determination in the
On or after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to PSF from Korea and Taiwan, pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.
These orders are published in accordance with sections 736(a) and 19 CFR 351.211.
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board (CSSPAB) will meet Tuesday, June 13, 2000, Wednesday, June 14, 2000, and Thursday, June 15, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Advisory Board was established by the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235) to advise the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of NIST on security and privacy issues pertaining to federal computer systems. All sessions will be open to the public Details regarding the Board's activities are available at http://csrc.nist.gov/csspab/.
The meeting will be held on June 13-15, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, North Campus, 820 West Diamond Avenue, Gaithersburg, MD in Lecture Room 152.
As part of this meeting, a “security metrics” workshop will be held on June 13 and 14, 2000, to examine the approaches to measuring security. The following topics will be explored:
The first day of this workshop will be dedicated to presentations from the government, the private sector, and public sector organizations. The second day will consist of case studies presented by a government panel and an industry panel.
The last day of the meeting, Thursday, June 15, 2000, the Board will review the progress of the workshop and, as appropriate, plan or recommend follow-on activity. The Board will also devote discussion period to develop the Board's future program and to identify key issues.
The Board agenda will include a period of time, not to exceed thirty minutes, for oral comments and questions from the public. Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Members of the public who are interested in speaking are asked to contact the Board Secretariat at the telephone number indicated below. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the Board. It would be appreciated if 35 copies of written material were available for distribution to the Board and attendees at the meeting no later than June 5, 2000. Approximately 15 seats will be available for the public and media.
Mr. Edward Roback, Board Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, telephone: (301) 975-3696.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Social Sciences Advisory Committee and a number of joint meetings of its Groundfish Oversight Committee and Groundfish Advisory Panel in June, 2000. Recommendations from the these groups will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
See
See
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; (978) 465-0492.
Location: Holiday Inn, One Newbury Street (Rt. 1 North), Peabody, MA 01960; telephone: (978) 535-4600.
The committee will discuss the social and economic issues associated with measures proposed for Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The proposed measures include a rotational area management system for Atlantic sea scallops including possible access to the groundfish closed areas on Georges Bank and in Southern New England, modifications to trawl gear to require the same scallop selectivity as dredge gear, and a possible increase in the seven-person crew limit. The committee also will discuss the organization of workshops for improving social and economic analyses. Finally, the committee will receive an update on the work of the Council's Capacity Committee.
Location: Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge, Interstate Traffic Circle, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 436-7600.
The committee and advisors will conduct a joint meeting to continue development of management options for Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. They also will consider options for developing an area management system, or for a sector allocation system. Work on these options will continue at all meetings to be held in June. In addition, the committee will continue to develop changes to current management measures that will improve the effectiveness of the existing management system. The goal is to develop management alternatives for review at public hearings in the fall of 2000. This same agenda will be followed for the following list of joint Groundfish Committee and Advisory Panel meetings.
Location: Radisson Hotel, 35 Governor Winthrop Boulevard, New London, CT 06320; telephone: (860) 443-7000.
Location: Sheraton Inn—Providence Airport, 1850 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 738-4000.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0149).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Subcontract Consent. A request for public comments was published at 65 FR 14950 on March 20, 2000. No comments were received.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before June 26, 2000.
Comments including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405.
Linda Klein, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-3775.
The objective to consent to subcontract, as discussed in FAR Part 44, is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which the contractor spends Government funds, and complies with Government policy when subcontracting. The consent package provides the administrative contracting officer a basis for granting, or withholding consent to subcontract.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension of an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Summary Subcontract Report. A request for public comments was published at 65 FR 14951, on March 20, 2000. No comments were received.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before June 26, 2000.
Comments including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405.
Victoria Moss, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-4764.
In accordance with the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631,
Take notice that on May 3, 2000, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO), tendered for filing an correction regarding a proposed amendment (Amendment No. 29), to the ISO Tariff, which had been filed in the above-referenced docket on May 2, 2000. The correction provided tariff sheets containing Tariff sections that were “rolled over” to subsequent pages of the Tariff, as a result of changes and additions made in the Amendment No. 29 filing, and corrected an error in the section numbering on a certain Tariff sheet that was included in the Amendment No. 29 filing.
The ISO states that this filing has been served upon the Public Utilities Commission of California, the California Energy Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, and all parties with effective Scheduling Coordinator Service Agreements under the ISO tariff.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before May 30, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on May 10, 2000, East Tennessee Natural Gas Company (East Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002, filed with the Commission in Docket NO. CP00-51-001 an amendment to the pending application filed on December 17, 1999, in Docket No. CP00-51-000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), to reflect change in the locations of meter stations, main line valves, and manifolds for which certificate authorization is sought, all as more fully set forth in the amendment which is open to the public for inspection.
By the pending application in Docket No. CP00-51-000, East Tennessee proposes to construct, install, and operate: (1) 15.16 miles of 12-inch diameter pipeline looping in Washington, Smyth, and Wythe Counties, Virginia; (2) three meter stations in McGinn, Greene, and Roane Counties, Tennessee, and a modficiation to an existing meter station in Morgan County, Tennessee; (3) approximately 0.62 miles of 22-inch diameter replacement pipe on East Tennessee's 3100 Line in Smith and Overton Counties, Tennessee. Finally, East Tennessee's 3100 Line: and (4) approximately 450 feet of 10-inch and 12-inch diameter replacement pipeline, in addition to two mainline valves on East Tennessee's 3200 Line at the Tennessee River Crossing. Additionally, East Tennessee seeks certain other authorizations, including authorization to up rate four compressor units located at Station 3101 in Robertson County, Tennessee, and Station 3210 in Marion County, Tennessee, and authorization to hydrostatically test to increase the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 26.42 miles of pipe on East Tennessee requests that the Commission authorize the abandonment of approximately 0.62 miles of pipe being replaced align East Tennessee's 3100 Line plus 250 feet of pipe, two mainline valve assemblies and miscellaneous fittings and appurtenances being replaced along the 3200 Line by the above-referenced replacement pipe. East Tennessee submits that these activities are necessary to provide additional firm transportation service to eight customers on the part of East Tennessee's pipeline system located in eastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia (Rocky Top Expansion Project).
In the subject amendment, East Tennessee seeks to modify its original request for certificate authority by requesting authorization to,
East Tennessee also proposes to modify its original proposal with various changes in work space requirements and construction rights-of-way to meet the Commission's template. East Tennessee's other proposed modifications include the following:
(1) Additional temporay work spaces at Mainline Valve Section 3313, Virginia, and Mainline Valve Section 3105, Tennessee;
(2) Seven new hydrostatic testing manifold location in the vicinity of Mainline Valve Section 3105, Tennessee, and six new hydrostatic testing manifold locations in the vicinity of Mainline Valve Section 3107, Tennessee;
(3) Four new main line valves, replacement of main line valves, and one new relief valve in the vicinity of Mainline Valve Section 3105, Tennessee;
(4) One new relief valve in vicinity of Mainline Valve Section 3107, Tennessee;
(5) New access road in vicinity of Mainline Valve Section 3313, Virginia;
(6) Five temporary access roads in vicinity of Mainline Valve Section 3105, Tennessee, and four temporary access roads in vicinity of Mainline Valve Section 3107, Virginia_eight of these temporary access roads would be constructed within existing permanent rights-of-way:
(7) One temporary access road in vicinity of Tennessee River Crossing, Mainline valve Section 3213-1A1/1A2, Tennessee_this temporary access road would be constructed within an existing permanent right-of-way and existing road.
Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before June 9, 2000, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10) All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Susan T. Halbach, Senior Counsel, P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252, phone number (713) 420-5751.
A person obtaining intervenor status will be place on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents issued by the Commission, filed by the applicant, or filed by all other intervenors. An intervenor can file for rehearing of any Commission order and can petition for court review of any such order. However, an intervenor must serve copies of comments or any other filing it makes with the Commission to every other intervenor in the proceeding, as well as filing an original and 14 copies with the Commission. A person does not have to intervene, however, in order to have comments considered. A person, instead, may submit two copies of such comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of environmental documents, and will be able to participate in meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed document son all other parties. However, commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission, and will not have the right to seek rehearing or appeal the Commission's final order to a Federal court.
Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the NGA and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter finds that the proposal is required by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.
Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for East Tennessee to appear or be represented at the hearing.
Take notice that on May 1, 2000, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (Indianapolis) submitted revised standards of conduct in response to the Commission's February 24, 2000 Order.
Indianapolis states that it served copies of the filing to all parties on the service list, to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and others on the official service list in this proceeding.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before June 5, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of Indianapolis's filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at
Take notice that on May 16, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the following tariff sheets, to become effective June 15, 2000:
Koch states that it has revised the above tariff sheets to reflect minor housekeeping changes for clarification of Koch's FERC Gas Tariff.
Koch states that copies of this filing have been served upon Koch's customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on May 15, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (Midwestern), tendered for filing certain Negotiated Rate Arrangements. Midwestern requests that the Commission approve the Negotiated Rate Arrangements effective November 1, 2000.
Midwestern states that the filed Negotiated Rate Arrangements reflect negotiated rates between Midwestern and Nicor Gas (Nicor) for transportation under Rate Schedule FT-A beginning November 1, 2000.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that there will be a full group meeting of the Rock Creek-Cresta Relicensing Collaborative on Monday, June 5, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the PG&E offices, 2740 Gateway Oaks Drive, in Sacramento, California. Mark Robinson of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects has been invited to participate by phone for a brief update of the settlement status. Expected participants need to give their names to William Zemke (PG&E) at (415) 973-1646 so that they can get through security.
For further information, please contact Elizabeth Molloy at (202) 208-0771.
Take notice that on May 18, 2000, SkyGen Energy LLC (Complainant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a complaint against Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Savannah Electric and Power Company (Respondent) pursuant to Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206. According to the Complaint, Respondent wrongfully denied a request made by SkyGen Energy Marketing, LLC on behalf of SkyGen and Santa Rosa Energy LLC (Santa Rosa Energy) under its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) because that denial is based upon repudiation of the executed interconnection agreement between the Complainant and Respondent. The Complainant alleges that Respondent is denying Complainant interconnection service (the ability to access its electrical system) and its request for transmission service.
According to the Complainant, Respondent has planned the addition of its own generation to the Southwest Quadrant of its system while ignoring the addition of Complainant's Facility to the system already accomplished by the executed interconnection agreement. Now, on the basis that the Respondent cannot honor the Complainant's interconnection agreement by adding its
Complainant also asserts that Respondent has failed to consider reassignment of transmission capacity reserved for native load use but not currently needed or used, operating restrictions and/or special protection systems, or redispatch to accommodate Complainant's request for firm transmission service. According to the Complaint, Respondent has refused to expeditiously use a Power System Stabilizer solution it has used in order to accommodate its own generation, and which has been demonstrated to be a means that can accommodate Respondent's request for firm transmission service.
Questions concerning the Complaint may be directed to counsel for Complainant, Robert L. Daileader, Jr., Nixon Peabody LLP, Suite 700, One Thomas Circle, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone 202/457-5318, Fax 202/457-5355, e-mail rdaileader@nixonpeabody.com.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before May 31, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http:/www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before May 31, 2000.
Take notice that on May 15, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing certain Negotiated Rate Arrangement. Tennessee requests that the Commission approve the Negotiated Rate Arrangement effective November 1, 2000.
Tennessee states that the filed Negotiated Rate Arrangement reflects negotiated rates between Tennessee and Nicor Gas (“Nicor”) for transportation under Rate Schedule FT-A beginning November 1, 2000.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with Mr. David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Please reference the following number, P-2310-106, on any comments or motions filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filing must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington DC 20426.
Please include the noted project numbers on any comments or motions filed.
j.
The transfer application was filed within five years of the expiration of the licenses for Project Nos. 2516 and 2517. In Hydroelectric Relicensing Regulations Under the Federal Power Act (54 Fed. Reg. 23,756; FERC Stat. and Regs., Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 30,854 at p. 31,437), the Commission declined to forbid all license transfers during the last five years of an existing license, and instead indicated that it would scrutinize all such transfer requests to determine if the transfer's primary purpose was to give the transferee an advantage in relicensing (id. at p. 31,438 n. 318).
k.
l.
Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “Comments”, “Recommendations for Terms and Conditions”, “Protest”, or “Motion to Intervene” as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of annual change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, minus one percent.
The Commission is issuing the index that oil pipelines must apply to their July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000 index ceiling levels to compute their index ceiling levels for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, in accordance with 18 CFR 342.3(d). This index, which is the percent change (expressed as a decimal) in the annual average Producer Price Index for Finished Goods from 1998 to 1999, minus one percent, is 0.007598. Oil pipelines must multiply their July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000 index ceiling levels by 1.007598 to compute their index ceiling levels for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001.
David Ulevich, Office of Markets, Tariffs, and Rates, Corporate Applications, Group 2, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-0678.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in both the Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) and the Records and Information management System (RIMS).
CIPS provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission since November 14, 1994. CIPS can be accessed using the CIPS link or the Energy Information Online icon. The full text of this document is available on CIPS in ASCII and WordPerfect 8.0 format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
RIMS contains images of documents submitted to an issued by the Commission after November 16, 1981. Documents from November 1995 to the present can be viewed and printed from FERC's Home page using the RIMS link or the Energy Information Online icon. Descriptions of documents back to November 16, 1981, are also available from RIMS-on-the-Web; requests for copies of these and other older documents should be submitted to the Public Reference Room.
User assistance is available for RIMS, CIPS, and the Website during normal business hours from our Help line at (202) 208-222 (E-Mail to
During normal business hours, documents can also be viewed and/or printed in FERC's Public Reference Room where RIMS, CIPS, and the FERC Website are available. User assistance is also available.
The Commission's regulations include a methodology for oil pipelines to change their rates through use of an index system that establishes ceiling levels for such rates. The index system as set forth at 18 CFR 342.3 is based on the annual change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG), minus one percent. The regulations provide that each year the Commission will publish an index reflecting the final change in the PPI-FG, minus one percent, after the final PPI-FG is made available by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in May of each calendar year.
The annual average PPI-FG index figure for 1998 was 130.7 and the annual average PPI-FG index figure for 1999 was 133.0.
To obtain July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000 ceiling levels, pipelines must first calculate their ceiling levels for the January 1, 1995-June 30, 1995 index period, by multiplying their December 31, 1994 rates by 1.002175. Pipelines must then multiply those ceiling levels by 0.996415 to obtain the July 1, 1995-June 30, 1996 ceiling levels. Then pipelines must multiply their July 1, 1995-June 30, 1996 ceiling levels by 1.009124 to obtain the July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997 ceiling levels, and multiply the July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997 ceiling levels by 1.016583 to obtain the July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998 ceiling levels. Pipelines then must multiply the July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998 ceiling levels by 0.993808 to obtain the July 1, 1998-June 30, 1999 ceiling levels. Then, pipelines must multiply the July 1, 1998-June 30, 1999 ceiling levels by 0.981654 to obtain the July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000 ceiling levels. Finally, pipelines must multiply the July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000 ceiling levels by 1.007698 to obtain the July 1, 2000-June 30, 2001 ceiling levels.
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(h), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or a prohibited off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested on-the-record proceeding,
Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such requests only when in determines that fairness so requires.
Exempt off-the-record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications received in the Office of the Secretary within the preceding 14 days. The document may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. For further information contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-1379.
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is as noted above. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to Performance Evaluation and Records Management, Washington, DC 20554.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 8, 2000.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1. David C. Reiling, Minneapolis, Minnesota; to acquire voting shares of University Financial Corporation, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of University National Bank, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 19, 2000.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a cooperative agreement program for the (1) Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance System (PedNSS), and (2)Pregnancy Nutrition Surveillance System (PNSS).
CDC is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of “Healthy People 2010” a national activity to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life. This announcement is related to the focus areas of Public Health Infrastructure, Nutrition and Overweight; and Maternal, Infant, and Child Health. For the conference copy of “Healthy People 2010,” visit the internet site: <http://www.health.gov/healthypeople>.
The purpose of this program is to improve the capacity to conduct continuous program-based pediatric and pregnancy nutrition surveillance by adding relevant data items to enhance the ability to monitor the health and nutrition-related problems of women and children. For additional background information see Attachment I.
Assistance will be provided only to the health departments of States or their bona fide agents that have submitted 1998 or 1999 PedNSS and/or PNSS files which are included in the national PedNSS and/or PNSS reports. Eligible applicants could include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, federally recognized Indian tribal governments, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
Approximately $250,000 is available in FY 2000 to fund approximately 4 awards. It is expected that the average award will be $60,000, ranging from $45,000 to $65,000. It is expected that the awards will begin on or about September 30, 2000, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of 1 year. Funding estimates may change.
Funding preference will be given to eligible applicants that submit an application to add Core and Supplemental data items to both the PedNSS and PNSS (Record specifications, field explanations, and code definitions for data items are included in Attachment I).
In conducting activities to achieve the purposes of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under
a. Expand the PedNSS and/or PNSS to include core and supplemental data items that are routinely collected in public health clinics. Applicants should be willing to include the following core data items in their nutrition surveillance system including: (1) Household Income, (2) Household Size, (3) Date of Height and Weight Measure, (4) Date of Hemoglobin/Hematocrit Measure, and (5) for PedNSS only, Date of Most Recent Breastfeeding Response.
In addition, applicants participating in PedNSS shall be willing to add 3 of the 4 PedNSS supplemental data items including: (1) Zip Code, (2) Introduction to Supplementary Feeding, (3) TV/Video Viewing, and (4) Household smoking.
Applicants participating in PNSS shall be willing to add 4 of the 5 PNSS supplemental data items including: (1) Zip Code, (2) Gestational Diabetes, (3) High Blood Pressure During Pregnancy, (4) Pre-pregnancy Multivitamin Consumption, and (5) Multivitamin Consumption During Pregnancy .
b. Plan and implement procedures for ensuring the completeness and quality of the data, including training and data editing.
c. Propose an evaluation strategy to assess the usefulness of the suggested core and supplemental data items for program planning
d. Prepare and disseminate surveillance information through presentation and publication in appropriate forums.
a. Assist in the design of standardized data items, definitions, procedures, and methods to collect the desired surveillance information.
b. Provide training and consultation on the rationale, code definitions and methods to collect new core and supplemental data items.
c. Provide technical support for data processing or assist state participants in developing appropriate data-processing capabilities.
d. Assist the recipient in evaluating the usefulness of the suggested core and supplemental data items.
e. Assist the recipient in preparing and presenting Program-relevant surveillance findings to appropriate state and national audiences.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan. The narrative should be no more than 15 double-spaced pages, printed on one side, with one inch margins, and unreduced font.
a. Define data items to be collected. List the core and supplemental data items that will be included in the revised PedNSS and PNSS transaction files (Record specifications, field explanations, and code definitions for data items are included in Attachment I).
b. Describe the architecture and software of the WIC information system and identify key project staff that will update and test the revised transaction files for PedNSS and PNSS. Include the resume and job descriptions for key project staff in the supporting materials.
c. Define methods to establish data collection for the new core or supplemental data items.
d. Define the process for development and testing of the transaction file(s) to ensure completeness and accuracy of the file(s).
e. Define the process for establishing routine submission of future files.
f. Describe a plan to evaluate the usefulness of the suggested core and supplemental data items.
g. Outline a time schedule for activities listed under c, d, e, and f.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0937-0189). Forms are available at the following Internet address: www.cdc.gov...Forms, or in the application kit. On or before
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.)
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
1. The extent to which the applicant states that they will collect and submit new core and supplemental PedNSS and PNSS data items. (10 points)
2. The extent to which the applicant describes the procedures planned to develop and test the transaction files, including methods to establish data collection for any new core and supplemental data items not currently collected by the WIC information system. (30 points)
3. Confirmation of applicant's intention to support future routine file submission. The extent to which the applicant details submission procedures. (20 points)
4. Time schedule: Confirmation that project activities are sequential and will be completed in a timely fashion. (20 points)
5. Capability: The extent to which the applicant demonstrates the organizational capacity and ability to develop and conduct proposed program activities, including the architecture and software of the WIC information system and the key project staff having the responsibility and authority to carry out the program activities, as evidenced by job descriptions and resumes.(20 points)
If applicable, whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.
6. Budget (not scored)
The extent to which the budget is reasonable and the budget justification is consistent with the program objectives and purpose.
7. Human Subjects Research (not scored)
Does the application adequately address the requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects?
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. Progress reports (annual);
2. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment II in the application kit.
This program is authorized under sections 301(a) and 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. section 241(a) and 42 U.S.C. 247b(k)(2),as amended.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
This announcement and other CDC program announcements can be found on the CDC home page Internet address—http://www.cdc.gov. Click on “Funding” then “Grants and Cooperative Agreements.”
To obtain additional information, contact: Cynthia Collins, Grants Management Specialist, Procurement and Grants Office, Grants Management Branch Announcement 00116, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, telephone (770) 488-2757, Email address coc9@cdc.gov.
For program technical assistance, contact: Diane Clark, Deputy Branch Chief, Maternal and Child Nutrition Branch, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717, Telephone (770) 488-5702, Email address: ldc2@cdc.gov.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a cooperative agreement program for establishing a Public Health Laboratory Sciences Training Program for Hispanic and Native American Students. CDC is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of “Healthy People 2010”, a national activity to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life. This announcement is related to the focus areas of Environmental Health, Nutrition and Overweight, Tobacco Use, Substance Abuse, Diabetes, Heart Disease and Stroke, Cancer, Maternal, Infant and Child Health, and Education and Community-Based Programs. For the conference copy of “Healthy People 2010”, visit the internet site: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
The purpose of the program is to introduce Hispanic and Native American students to opportunities in public health and laboratory science through education and training, to include students from undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral levels.
Applications may be submitted by public and private universities or colleges from the United States and its territories, offering undergraduate and postgraduate academic programs in the physical and/or biomedical sciences, and leading to degrees at the bachelors, masters, and doctorate levels.
Public Law 104-65 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, cooperative agreement, contract, loan, or any other form.
Approximately $150,000 is available in FY 2000 to fund one award. It is expected that the award will begin on or about September 30, 2000, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to 5 years. Funding estimates may change.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.
Funds may be used for activities which support the goals and objectives of the fellowship program including travel expenses for program faculty and students for orientation and training, and to attend certain professional meetings for recruitment. Funds may be used for reporting results of fellowship research and the preparation and distribution of material to promote and announce the availability of this fellowship program. Funds may also be used to offset a portion of salaries of the recipient institution's faculty, staff, and graduate teaching assistants who spend time in support of the technical and administrative aspects of this program. Funds may be provided for student stipends, with payment scales determined by the recipient, based on the prior training, education and experience of the Fellow.
Funds may not be used for the direct support of faculty research projects except for those aspects of such projects which directly benefit the specific training objectives of Fellows.
The mission of the funding agency includes the application of analytical laboratory procedures to measure substances in biological samples from humans. The purpose of these analyses is to assess human exposure to toxic substances, health effects from the exposure, risk factors for diseases, and effectiveness of public health interventions. In achieving this mission, the laboratory techniques and areas of scientific investigation include:
1. Sample preparation techniques
2. Liquid or gas chromatography
3. Radio-immunoassay (RIA), enzyme linked immunoassay (EIA), or other immuno-assay techniques
4. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and other molecular biology techniques
5. Atomic absorption and atomic emission techniques
6. Mass spectroscopic techniques
7. Wet chemistry and UV-Visible and Infared spectroscopic techniques
8. Analytical method development and evaluation procedures
9. Routine analytical procedures and quality control
10. Environmental chemistry, environmental health, and toxicology
11. Nutritional Biochemistry, Diabetes, Cancer, Smoking and health l2. Introduction to epidemiology from a laboratory perspective
13. Other laboratory techniques and scientific disciplines as appropriate and necessary
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1. Recipient Activities, and CDC will be responsible for the activities under 2. CDC Activities.
a. Establish and manage a comprehensive program to recruit, select, compensate, mentor, and guide Native American and Hispanic students in the sciences for participation in a public health laboratory sciences training program. (The target number of students for this project is up to 6 per year. Typical fellowships at the undergraduate level will be for a maximum of 4 months. At the post-baccalaureate level (including the post-Masters and the post-Doctorate levels) typical fellowships will be for one year, renewable annually for a maximum of three years. Appointments of less than one year may be made under special circumstances).
b. Provide a senior staff or faculty member to serve as fellowship director, who will be responsible for establishing and/or maintaining close working relationships with students.
c. Identify students with interest and aptitude in specific scientific disciplines such as: chemistry and all sub-specialties of chemistry (clinical, analytical, and organic, etc.), biochemistry and all related sub-specialties (toxicology, neurotoxicology, biosensors, etc.), molecular biology, genetics, biostatistics, and data acquisition and instrument control systems design.
d. Develop new, or modify existing, undergraduate and graduate level curricula in relevant academic departments of the recipient institution to complement this fellowship program.
e. Establish working relationships with community colleges and secondary schools that serve significant populations of Native American and Hispanic students.
f. Develop curricula that provide training in Environmental Chemistry and Environmental Health.
g. Provide guidance to the project mentors on the unique cultural or educational needs of potential Fellows since these needs may have an impact on the success and retention of the students in this program.
h. Provide preliminary training to potential Fellows in chemical and biological laboratory safety, including universal precautions for working with biological samples, use of protective equipment, work-site performance expectations, presentation skills, basic principles of laboratory quality control, and other training which helps build student confidence for encountering the differences between academic settings and the high-throughput laboratory setting they will encounter during the CDC-based portion of their fellowship and in future employment in the sciences.
a. Provide assistance, if needed, in the development of relevant curricula.
b. Provide practical and relevant laboratory training, and work experience opportunities at the CDC Environmental Health Laboratory facilities in Atlanta, Georgia.
c. Provide training oversight, coordination, and guidance for the Fellows and their selected research projects. (Refer to Programmatic Interest section of this announcement.)
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. The applicant should include as part of the narrative or as a two to five page report at the beginning addressing the following information:
1. Serve local populations of at least 100,000 Native Americans and/or Hispanics.
2. Annually enroll a total of at least 10,000 graduate and undergraduate students, with total enrollment by
3. Have a demonstrated record of success in recruiting and retaining minority undergraduate science students through completion of their bachelors degree and continuation of post graduate training. (Please provide recent historical data on matriculation, retention, graduation, and post-graduate placement of minority students where available).
4. Evidence of past successful activities which illustrate creativity and originality in establishing relationships with local community colleges serving Native American and Hispanic populations.
5. An academic program and supporting faculty recognized in analytical, biomedical, and/or environmental chemistry.
6. Provide plans for recruitment and outreach for Fellows to include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits beyond those already demonstrated.
7. Present estimates of the level of participation in the program in the first year and projections for future years.
Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan. The narrative should be no more than twenty double-spaced pages printed on one side, with one inch margins, and unreduced font plus pre-printed attachments. The application must be submitted unstapled and unbound.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS-5161-1 (OMB Number 0937-0189). Forms are in the application kit.
On or before July 21, 2000, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in
Deadline: Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are either:
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date and received in time for submission to the Objective Review Panel. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.)
Late Applications: Applications which do not meet the criteria in (a) or (b) above are considered late applications, will not be considered, and will be returned to the applicant.
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
1. Understanding of the Objectives of the Project (20 percent)
The extent to which the applicant demonstrates an understanding of the nature of the problem to be addressed. This specifically includes description of the unique training needs of Native American and Hispanic science students at the undergraduate and graduate levels and cultural barriers which may discourage them from pursuing academic programs in the sciences, and cultural or other factors which may affect the retention of Fellows in the program. Applicant should provide estimates (and sources of estimates) of the demographics of Native American and Hispanic enrollment in scientific higher education in the geographic areas served by the applicant and factors which may affect the validity of such estimates.
The extent to which the applicant describes in detail the academic institution's component of the proposed Fellowship program including, but not limited to a description of:
a. An overview of the goals and objectives of the fellowship program.
b. A comprehensive program to recruit, select, compensate, mentor, and guide Native American and Hispanic students in the sciences for participation in a public health laboratory sciences training program.
c. Activities to establish close working relationships with students.
d. The institution's undergraduate and graduate level curricula in relevant academic departments that may be reasonably expected to integrate with the purpose of this fellowship program.
The extent to which the applicant provides evidence of ability to carry out the proposed project and the extent to which the applicant demonstrates capability to achieve the objectives of the proposed program. This may include plans, time-lines, approaches, methods for conducting such a fellowship program, and may include collaborating with other universities or other health research agencies.
The extent to which professional personnel involved in this project are qualified, including evidence of experience similar to this project.
The extent to which the applicant demonstrates the ability to collaborate and/or form partnerships with community colleges and secondary schools serving significant populations of Hispanic and Native American students.
The extent to which the applicant describes the plans for administering the project.
The extent to which the applicant provides a detailed budget justification which is reasonable and consistent with the objectives of this program.
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of
1. semi-annual progress reports, no more than 30 days after the end of the report period.
2. financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period. Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I in the application kit.
Additional information can be attained as follows:
This program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act, Section 301(a) and 317 [42 U.S.C. 241(a) and
This and other CDC Announcements can be found on the CDC homepage Internet address—http://www.cdc.gov. Click on “Funding” then “Grants and Cooperative Agreements”. To receive additional written information and to request an application kit, call 1-888-Grants4 (1-888-472-6874). You will be asked to leave your name and address and will be instructed to identify the Announcement number of interest.
If you have questions after reviewing the contents of all the documents, business management technical assistance may be obtained from: Mattie B. Jackson, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),Room 3000, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: (770) 488-2718, Email address: mij3@cdc.gov.
For program technical assistance, contact: Dayton T. Miller, Ph.D., National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE (F-18), Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, Telephone: (770) 488-4452, Email address: dtm1@cdc.gov.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of 30-day comment period.
Notice is given that the document entitled: “Third Assessment Plan Addendum: Lower Fox River/Green Bay NRDA” (“The Addendum”) will be available for public review and comment on the date of publication in the
The U.S. Department of the Interior (“Department”), the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources have asserted trusteeship for natural resources considered in this assessment, pursuant to subpart G of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300.600, 300.605, and 300.610, and Executive Order 12580, 52 F.R. 2923 (Jan. 23, 1987).
The assessment, including the activities addressed in this addendum, will be conducted in accordance with the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations found at 43 CFR part 11, to the extent applicable. The public review of the Addendum announced by this Notice is provided for in 43 CFR 11.32(C).
Interested members of the public are invited to review and comment on the Addendum. Copies of the Addendum, and the “Assessment Plan: Lower Fox River/Green Bay NRDA” (“The Plan”) issued on August 23, 1996 (FR Doc. 96-21520), can be requested from the address listed below, or downloaded from the following web site: http://www.fws.gov/r3pao/nrda. All written comments will be considered and included in the Report of Assessment, at the conclusion of the assessment process.
Written comments on the Addendum must be submitted on or before June 26,2000.
Requests for copies of the Addendum and/or the Plan may be made to: David Allen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1015 Challenger Court, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54311.
The purpose of this natural resource damage assessment is to confirm and quantify the suspected injuries to natural resources in the Lower Fox River, Green Bay, and Lake Michigan environment resulting from exposure to hazardous substances released by area paper mills and other potential sources. It is suspected that this exposure has caused injury to trustee resources. The injury and resultant damages will be assessed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, and the Clean Water Act, as amended.
The objective of this Addendum is to initiate a process through which the governmental partners will attempt to arrive at a single coordinated Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan that integrates the ongoing state and federal/tribal natural resource damage assessments and to notify the public regarding this process.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
This notice corrects the total acreage figures of Public Land Order 7437 published in 65 FR 58, of March 24, 1000, on page 15917. The Summary of the Public Land Order should read: “This order modifies 5 Executive orders to established a 20-year term as to 8,040.07 acres of lands withdrawn for the Bureau of Land Management for use as Powersite Reserves. This order also partially revokes 3 of the Executive orders insofar as they affect 2,362.82 acres and opens 401.95 acres to surface entry. The remaining 1,960.87 acres have been conveyed out of Federal ownership. All of the lands in Federal ownership have been and will remain open to mining and mineral leasing.” Paragraph 2 lists 277.30 acres, that figure is corrected to 401.95 acres. Paragraph 3 lists 3,165.70 acres , that figure is corrected to 1,960.87 acres.
May 25, 2000.
Jackie Simmons, BLM Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, 208-373-3867.
Bureau of Land Management, North Dakota Field Office, Interior.
Notice of meeting; Dakotas Advisory Council Meetings.
A meeting of the Dakotas Resource Advisory Council will be held July 10 & 11, 2000, at the Travel Lodge, Dickinson, North Dakota. The session will convene at 8 a.m. on July 10th and resume at 8 a.m. on the 11th. Agenda items will include OHV followup, South Dakota Land Exchange, grazing permit renewal update, Schnell signing, Endangered Species (sage grouse and prairie dogs), Grasslands Stewardship Initiative, Field Trip to Schnell Recreation Area.
The meeting is open to the public and a public comment period is set for 8 a.m. on July 11th. The public may make oral statements before the Council or file written statements for the Council to consider. Depending on the number of persons wishing to make an oral statement, a per-person time limit may be established. Summary minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection and copying.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Dakotas.
Douglas Burger, Field Office Manager, North Dakota Field Office, 2933 3rd Ave. W., Dickinson, North Dakota. Telephone (701) 225-9148.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meeting location and time for the Sierra Front/Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (Nevada).
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), a meeting of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sierra Front/Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (Nevada) will be held as indicated below. The topic of discussion will be a review of the Black Rock Management Plan being prepared by the Winnemucca Field Office, and other topics the council may raise.
The meetings is open to the public. The public may present written and/or comments to the council. The public comment period for the council meeting will be at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14th. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who desire a hard copy of the agenda, should contact Mike Holbert, Winnemucca Field Office, 5100 East Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445, telephone (775) 623-1514 no later than June 10, 2000.
The council will meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Best Western Inn-Fernley, 1405 East Newlands Drive, Fernley, Nevada. Public comment on individual topics will be received at the discretion of the Council Chairperson, as meeting moderator, with a general public comment period on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
Mike Holbert, Associate Field Manager, Winnemucca Field Office, 5100 East Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445. Telephone (775) 623-1514.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Proposed establishment of supplementary rules.
The Arcata Field Office is proposing the establishment of the following Supplementary Rules for the King Range National Conservation Area as provided for under title 43 Code of Federal Regulations subpart 8365.1-6. The implementation of fees is authorized under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 as Amended, and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions Act of 1996 as Amended (Pub. L. 104-134).
BLM administered lands within the following areas are closed to camping (overnight occupancy) outside of developed campsites: Public lands within 500 feet of the perimeter of the Mattole Campground.
An overnight trailhead parking fee will be implemented at the Mattole and Black Sands Beach Recreation Sites to meet the goals described in the supplementary information below. The fee will be set at $2 per night (any future fee changes would be published locally prior to implementation) and will be in effect from
Campground use fees of $5.00 per night are established for the Mattole and Honeydew Creek Campgrounds (any future fee changes would be published locally prior to implementation). Campsite occupancy is limited to two vehicles and 8 persons per site. Fees are in effect from
This site is closed to all overnight camping. Nighttime occupancy is limited to vehicle parking for off-site backcountry use. For the purposes of this rule, off-site means traveling north of Telegraph Creek for camping/backpacking or other overnight uses. Use of the site itself is limited to 30 minutes for unloading/loading purposes during the nighttime restriction period. The nighttime restriction is in place from
These Supplementary Rules will be effective on July 1, 2000.
The BLM is requesting comments concerning these supplemental rules. The comment period will be open for 30 days from the date of publication of this notice.
Lynda Roush, Bureau of Land Management, Arcata Field Office, 1695 Heindon Rd., Arcata, CA 95521. Phone (707) 825-2300.
The above supplementary rules are being proposed for the following purposes:
The closure is intended to reduce resource damage and fire danger in the riparian area and beach dunes
The overnight parking fees will be implemented as a management tool for encouraging distribution of overnight use away from the crowded Black Sands Beach and Mattole trailheads, and to discourage large nighttime group gatherings at these trailheads. Neither facility is designed to accommodate large nighttime group events, and this use is not compatible with the goals of the King Range Management Program (1974) and King Range Visitor Services Plan (1992). All parking fees will be used within the King Range to cover maintenance costs of the sites and recreation opportunities that they support. Mattole Campground users will not have to pay the parking fee for vehicles (up to two) parked at their campsite.
Camping fees are established at Honeydew Creek and Mattole Campgrounds to cover a portion of the maintenance costs; to be commensurate with fees charged at other public and private camping areas in the region; and for use as a management tool to discourage nighttime group gatherings in the campgrounds. These nighttime group events are not compatible with the purpose of the site development and management as an overnight camping facility, nor with the goals of the King Range Management Program (1974) and King Range Visitor Services Plan (1992).
The Black Sands Beach Recreation Site is designed to be a backcountry trailhead parking area and day use facility. This rule is intended to limit nighttime use of the trailhead facilities to a parking area for backcountry use only. The parking facilities are located immediately adjacent to a residential area, and nighttime use of the area as a destination would cause unreasonable noise within the neighborhood. This restriction would not affect overnight backcountry users who park at the site, and will also not affect day use.
Violation of any of the above rules is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months (43 CFR 8360.0-7).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, proposes to withdraw approximately 960 acres of National Forest System lands, lying within the Siskiyou National Forest, to protect the recreation, fisheries, scenic, and water quality values of the Scenic section of the North Fork Smith Wild and Scenic River. This notice closes the lands for up to 2 years from surface entry and mining. The public lands have been and will remain open to mineral leasing.
Comments and requests for a public meeting must be received by August 24, 2000.
Comments and meetings requests should be sent to the Oregon/Washington State Director, BLM, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208-2965.
Charles R. Roy, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-952-6189.
On May 19, 2000, the Forest Service filed an application to withdraw the following described National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994)), but not the mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights:
All lands lying on the right (west) bank of the river corridor, including the river bed, and extending
AND all lands lying on the left (east) bank of the river corridor, including the river bed, and extending
The areas described aggregate approximately 960 acres in Curry County.
The purpose of the proposed withdrawal is to protect the outstanding recreation, fisheries, scenic, and water quality values for which the North Fork Smith River was designated Wild and Scenic.
For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their views in writing to the State Director at the address indicated above.
Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal. All interested parties who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal must submit a written request to the State Director at the address indicated above within 90 days from the publication of this notice. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the
The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2300.
For a period of 2 years from the date of publication of this notice in the
Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
Notice of extension of a currently approved information collection (OMB Control Number 1010-0091).
To comply with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are inviting comments on an information collection request (ICR), titled “30 CFR Part 254, Oil-Spill Response Requirements for Facilities Located Seaward of the Coast Line.” We are preparing an ICR, which we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Submit written comments by July 24, 2000.
Mail or hand carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Rules Processing Team; Mail Stop 4024; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Alexis London, Rules Processing Team, telephone (703) 787-1600. You may also contact Alexis London to obtain a copy of the collection of information at no cost.
We use the information collected under 30 CFR part 254 to determine compliance with OPA by owners/operators. Specifically, MMS needs the information to:
• determine effectiveness of the spill-response capability of owners/operators;
• review plans prepared under the regulations of a State and submitted to MMS to satisfy the requirements of this rule to ensure that they meet minimum requirements of OPA;
• verify that personnel involved in oil-spill response are properly trained and familiar with the requirements of the spill response plans and to witness spill-response exercises;
• assess the sufficiency and availability of contractor equipment and materials;
• verify that sufficient quantities of equipment are available and in working order;
• oversee spill-response efforts and maintain official records of pollution events; and
• assess the efforts of owners/operators to prevent oil spills or prevent substantial threats of such discharges.
Responses are mandatory. No proprietary, confidential, or sensitive information is collected.
• Spill response plans for OCS or State water facilities (100 hours).
• Revised spill response plans (16.5 hours).
• Modified OCS spill response plan for facilities in State waters (45 hours).
• Response plan for facilities in State waters using State requirements (93 hours).
• Conduct of annual training; retain records for 2 years (40 hours).
• Conduct of triennial response plan exercise; retain records for 3 years (110 hours).
Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. We have not identified any non-hour cost burdens and need to know if you have other costs associated with the collection of this information for either total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. Your estimates should consider the costs to generate, maintain, and disclose or provide the information. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: (i) before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB. In calculating the burden, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared a Director's Order setting forth its policies and procedures governing structural fire prevention, protection, and suppression. When adopted, the policies and procedures will apply to all units of the national park system, and will supersede and replace the policies and procedures issued in June 1987.
Written comments will be accepted until June 26, 2000.
Draft Director's Order #58 is available on the Internet at http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/index.htm. Requests for copies and written comments should be sent to Bill Oswald, NPS Structural Fire Program Manager, Fire Management Program Center, 3833 S. Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83705, or to his Internet address:
The NPS is updating its current system of internal written instructions. When these documents contain new policy or procedural requirements that may affect parties outside the NPS, they are first made available for public review and comment before being adopted. The policies and procedures governing structural fire management have previously been published in the form of guideline NPS-58. That guideline will be superseded by the new Director's Order 58 (and a reference manual that will be issued subsequent to the Director's Order). The draft Director's Order covers topics such as fire management planning, safety and health, cultural resources, concessions, reporting, investigation, training, coordination, program review, preparedness, and funding. Director's Order #58 addresses only structural fire management; wildland fire management is addressed in Director's Order #18, approved November 17, 1998 (and is also available on the Internet site listed above).
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation for BLS, ETA, PWBA, and OASAM contact Karin Kurz ({202} 219-5096 ext. 159 or by E-mail to Kurz-Karin@dol.gov). To obtain documentation for ESA, MSHA, OSHA, and VETS contact Darrin King ({202} 219-5096 ext 151 or by E-Mail to King-Darrin@dol.gov).
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM, ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, or VETS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ({202} 395-7316), on or before June 26, 2000.
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. The obtain documentation for BLS, ETA, PWBA, and OASAM contact Karin Kurz ((202) 219-5096 ext. 159 or by E-mail to Kurz-Karin@dol.gov). To obtain documentation for ESA, MSHA, OSHA, and VETS contact Darrin King ((201) 219-5096 ext. 151 or by E-Mail to King-Darrin@dol.gov).
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM, ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, or VETS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), on or before June 26, 2000.
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice: Announcement of Formula Allocations for the Program Year (PY) 2000 NFJP.
Pursuant to Section 182(d) of the WIA, the ETA is publishing the PY 2000 allocations for the NFJP authorized under Section 167 of the WIA.
Ms. Alicia Fernandez-Mott, Chief, Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs. Her e-mail address is <afernandez-mott@doleta.gov>. Her telephone number is (202) 219-5500, ext. 121. (This is not a toll-free number.)
May 25, 2000. Comments must be submitted on or before June 26, 2000.
On May 19, 1999, a Notice of the new formula for allocating funds available for the NFJP (formerly referred to as the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) program) was published in the
Implementing the new formula in PY 1999 gave rise to significant changes in relative funding levels. The magnitude of the realignment for some State service areas is substantial. This is attributable to the inherent weaknesses of the data sources used under the prior formula and also to the fact the sources had gradually become substantially date-stale. To provide for a smooth transition from the original distributions, to the distributions provided by the new formula, Part IV of the May 19, 1999 Notice provides a strategy for implementation of the new formula through four incremental “hold harmless” stages. The stages adjust the formula allocations by limiting the rate of reduction in relative funding levels to the four annual increments of 95 percent, 90 percent, 85 percent and 80 percent of the 1998 level—the last year under the old formula. Full implementation of the new (combined-data) formula is reached on the 5th year allocation. The May 19, 1999 Notice provides that for PY 2000, which is the second stage hold-harmless year, each State service area will receive no less than 90 percent of its PY 1998 allocation (64 FR 27390, 27399 § IV(2)). PY 2000 is the operating year that begins on July 1, 2000.
The Fiscal Year 2000 pre-recission appropriation for the MSFW programs
In PY 2000, the base amount allocated under the formula is equal to the PY 1999 formula allocation amount of $67,596,408. The budget addition amount is applied to those state service areas that are allocated a declining relative share of funding under the second hold-harmless stage of the new formula. Had there been no recission action, the total cost of this offset would be $2,927,691. Application of the 7.293 percent budget recission, reduces the budget addition by $213,517 to the post-recission level of $2,714,174. The total amount allocated to the States for the NFJP is the base amount, plus the budget addition amount, less the applied recission amount, leaving a net total of $70,310,582. The effects of these steps for each State service area are shown in the last three columns of the “Allocation Table.”
Under 20 CFR 669.240(a), at least 94 percent of the funds appropriated must be allocated to the State service areas for the NFJP grants. The total amount ($70,310,582) allocated for PY 2000 is 94.446 percent, thus exceeding the minimum requirement. The remaining amount of the appropriation is available for the other WIA Section 167 activities for farmworkers, which include the post recission amount of $2,963,543 for the PY 2000 farmworker housing assistance grants.
Part V of the
The final (far right-hand) column of the “Allocation Table” provides the allotments for the NFJP in PY 2000. Grantees will use these figures in preparing the PY 2000 NFJP grant plans.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), DOL.
Notice of availability of funds; Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA).
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) announces the availability of $20 million to award competitive grants designed to enhance the employability, employment and career advancement of people with disabilities through enhanced service delivery in the new One-Stop delivery system established under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The Work Incentive Grant program will provide grant funds to consortia and/or partnerships of public and private non-profit entities working in coordination with a state and/or local One-Stop delivery system to augment the existing programs and services and ensure programmatic access and streamlined, seamless service delivery for people with disabilities.
Applications will be accepted commencing on the date of publication. The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is Tuesday, August 1, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) at the address below. Telefacsimile (fax), telegraphed, or electronic applications will not be honored.
Applications shall be mailed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: Ms. B. Jai Johnson, SGA/DFA 00-107, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Room S-4203, Washington, DC 20210.
Questions should be faxed to Ms. B.Jai Johnson, Grants Management Specialist, Division of Federal Assistance, Fax (202) 219-8739. This is not a toll-free number. All inquiries should include the SGA number (DFA 00-107) and a contact name, fax and phone numbers. This solicitation is also being published on the Internet on the ETA's disability On-line Home Page at wdsc.org/disability, or the ETA homepage at doleta.gov. Award notifications will also be published on the ETA homepage.
Provisions relating to the One-Stop delivery system are at Section 121, 134(c) of the Workforce Investment Act (29 USC 2841, 2864); Wagner-Peyser Act 53(c)(1) (29 USC 496(c)(1)) and Department of Labor Appropriations Act 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113). Regulations governing the Workforce Investment Act are at 20 CFR parts 660-671. An Interim Final Rule was published in the
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 establishes comprehensive reform of existing Federal job training programs with amendments impacting service delivery under the Wagner Peyser Act, Adult Education and Literacy Act, the Rehabilitation Act and supersedes the Job Training Partnership Act. A number of other Federal programs are also identified as required partners under the One-Stop delivery system with the intention of providing comprehensive services for all Americans to access the information and resources available to them in the development and implementation of their career goals. The intention of the One-Stop system is to establish programs and providers in co-located, coordinated and integrated settings that are coherent and accessible for individuals and businesses alike in approximately 600 workforce investment areas which will be established throughout the nation.
The Workforce Investment Act establishes State and Local Workforce
Many people with disabilities are looking to the new workforce investment system to address their employment and training needs in a progressive, enlightened environment with cutting-edge technologies. They also expect the One-Stop delivery system to provide comprehensive services to meet multiple barriers which frequently limit their access to a productive, economically rewarding work life. These may include, but are not limited to, the availability of basic and skill development; vocational skill training or advanced educational opportunities; apprenticeship and entrepreneurial training; transportation assistance to reach training or employment; housing assistance or advise on retaining existing housing upon employment; and access to medical health coverage upon employment.
There are approximately 50 million Americans with disabilities, 30 million of whom are of working age. Of the latter, many are relegated to lives of poverty and reliance on public assistance and supports. The economic boom of recent years has had little to no impact on the more than 70% of those with significant disabilities of working age who are not employed. In addition, many people have hidden disabilities which may or may not be recognized or officially diagnosed but which impact their ability to obtain, retain or advance in employment.
Approximately 10 million people with disabilities are recipients or beneficiaries of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). Many other individuals with disabilities receive public assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The benefits or payments to these individuals are generally at or below Federal poverty income levels.
Generally eligibility for Medicaid, access to subsidized housing and other benefits are automatically tied to receipt of SSI or TANF, while Medicare and some other public supports are closely linked to SSDI benefits. Public policy systems, particularly those related to necessary health coverage, have for many years encouraged dependency on income supports and created many obstacles to employment and economic independence.
The loss of health care benefits and other structural disincentives to working and achieving self-sufficient, living wages have been partially addressed in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (TWWIIA) [Public Law 106-170] which, among other provisions, encourages States to enact expanded and more readily accessible health care coverage for working age individuals with disabilities. Although not authorized under the TWWIIA, the Department of Labor intends for the Work Incentive Grant program to further support the employment objectives of TWWIIA for SSI and SSDI recipients by enhancing the State and local workforce investment system for all people with disabilities.
The Department of Labor has worked with the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in designing the Work Incentive Grant program, in a coordinated and strategic effort to support the issuance and objectives of separate SSA's cooperative agreement and HHS's grant programs authorized under the TWWIIA. The SSA will be awarding $50,000 to $300,000 grants for a $23 million Planning, Assistance and Outreach program to establish the capacity to provide comprehensive information on work incentives to SSI and SSDI recipients throughout each State. Workforce Investment Boards and One-Stop systems, among other entities, are eligible applicants for the SSA Planning, Assistance and Outreach Cooperative Agreement program. The HHS Medicaid Infrastructure Grant program is authorized for five years with approximately $40 million to be awarded annually to State Medicaid Agencies for establishing Medicaid buy-in opportunities for individuals who are working. Each of the three grant programs is administered separately by its respective agency but are expected to be implemented in Fiscal Year 2000.
The Department of Education also provided input for the requirements of this Solicitation for Grant Application. The Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities, established under Executive Order 13078, facilitated and provided guidance to this multi-agency process as part of their charge to design a coordinated and aggressive national policy that will bring working-age individuals with disabilities into gainful employment at a rate approaching that of the general population.
The Department of Labor anticipates awarding 20-40 grants ranging from $500,000 to $1.5 million. The period of performance will be approximately 30 months from the date of execution by the Department. The grant funds would be available for expenditure until June 30, 2003 when the authority for these funds will expire. The Department may make subsequent grant awards, which would extend grant objectives, to the original grantees based on satisfactory performance and the availability of funds.
Eligible applicants may be a State and/or Local Workforce Investment Board(s) (State Board/Local Board(s)) established under the Workforce Investment Act or other State/local public entities including, Vocational Rehabilitation, Mental Health, Mental Retardation/Developmental Disability, TANF; and/or a private non-profit organization including, but not limited to Centers for Independent Living (CILs), disability advocacy and provider organizations, federally-funded disability grant entities, and other non-profit organizations which provide services and/or advocacy for people with disabilities; or a consortium thereof.
To the extent practicable and possible, the Department of Labor is encouraging consortia of entities to develop and submit applications under this grant program. If the applicant is not the State or Local Workforce Investment Board, the Board(s) must be a partner in the consortium.
Applications can be statewide in scope. Statewide projects must propose strategies for enhancing and improving services to people with disabilities involving all local workforce investment areas in the State. State-wide grant projects should obtain and provide letters of commitment from local Workforce Investment Boards to the extent possible. However, a statewide project must include the State Workforce Investment Board as a consortium partner, with applicable letters of commitment provided in the application.
Indian and Native American Tribal entities, or consortia of Tribes, may apply for Work Incentive Grants. These would involve coordination of services and enhancements to a One-Stop system approach for people with disabilities in a specific Indian community or covering multiple Tribal entities which may cut across multiple States and/or workforce investment areas. In such cases, letters of commitment from Local Boards may not be applicable. Grants to Indian and Native American tribal grantees are treated differently because of sovereignty and self-governance established under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act allowing for the government to government relationship between the Federal and Tribal Governments.
Applicants must submit four (4) copies of their proposal, with original signatures. The Application Narrative must be double-spaced, and on single-sided, numbered pages with the exception of format requirements for the Executive Summary. The Executive Summary must be limited to no more than two single-spaced, single sided pages. A font size of at least twelve (12) pitch is required throughout.
There are three required sections of the application. Requirements for each section are provided in this application package. Applications that fail to meet the requirements will not be considered.
Section I of the application must include the following two required elements: (1) Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance, and (2) Budget Information Form and budget narrative. All copies of the SF 424 MUST have original signatures of the legal entity applying for grant funding. Applicants shall indicate on the SF 424 the organization's IRS Status, if applicable. According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Section 18, an organization described in Section 501(c)4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which engages in lobbying activities shall not be eligible for the receipt of federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number is 17.207. Section I will not count against the application page limits.
The financial plan must describe all costs associated with implementing the project that are to be covered with grant funds. All costs should be necessary and reasonable according to the Federal guidelines set forth in the “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments,” (also known as the “Common Rule”) codified at 29 CFR part 97 (97.22), and “Grants and Agreements with Institutes of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations” (also known as OMB Circular A-110), codified at 29 CFR part 95 (95.27).
The financial plan must contain the following parts:
Each application shall provide a project synopsis which identifies the following:
• The applicant;
• The type of organization the applicant represents;
• Identification of consortium partners and the type of organizations they represent;
• The project service area;
• Whether the service area is an entire local workforce investment area, more than one local area, and/or all local areas in a State;
• The specific areas of focus in the announcement which are addressed by the project;
• The amount of funds requested;
• The planned period of performance;
• The comprehensive strategy proposed for providing seamless service delivery, for addressing the multi-faceted barriers to training and employment which affect people with disabilities, and for improving access for people with disabilities in the generic workforce system;
• The ways in which the proposal is coordinated with a State HHS grant and/or SSA benefits planner grant;
• How counseling and other support needs will be addressed in the One-Stop Center system;
• The actions already taken by the State or Local Workforce Investment Board to address the needs of people with disabilities in the One-Stop delivery system;
• The extent to which the One-Stop facilities and satellite site incorporate physical access for people with disabilities;
• The extent to which Vocational Rehabilitation is integrated or coordinated with the One-Stop delivery system;
• Data on the extent to which people with disabilities have been served under the prior Job Training Partnership Act program and under the Wagner-Peyser Act;
• The level of commitment the applicant and consortium members have to serving people with disabilities; and
• The extent to which the needs of individuals with disabilities from diverse cultural and/or ethnic groups will be addressed.
Section III of the application, the project narrative, must not exceed forty (40) pages for the Government Requirements/Statement of Work section, as described below in the “Required Content for Work Incentive Grant Applications—Program Year 2000.” The forty (40) page limit includes any Attachments which are provided by the applicant. Letters of general support or recommendation for a proposal should NOT be submitted and will count against the page limits. However, letters of commitment are required from partner/consortia organizations, including State and/or Local Workforce Investment Board(s) clearly stating their intent to provide services and resources to the grant.
The Department of Labor, in consultation with the President's Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities, has designed the Work Incentive Grant program to achieve the following objectives:
—Provide seamless service delivery within a One-Stop delivery system for people with a wide range of disabilities which may include both documented and undocumented physical, sensory, developmental/cognitive (e.g., mental retardation and learning disabilities, among others), mental and other health related functional disabilities.
—Maintain a referral source of diverse services and information that commonly impact the employability of people with disabilities, such as transportation, housing, education and training programs, access to technology, and health care coverage;
—Provide model One-Stop service delivery through availability of—
• comprehensive services and programs designed to meet multiple needs and common employment barriers such as a procedures for identifying those individuals with hidden disabilities through appropriate screening and diagnostic testing;
• state-of-the-art, fully accessible technologies and/or other accommodations that would be available for use in the One-Stop setting as well as establishing a process for the availability of accommodations in training settings; and
• knowledgeable, experienced and skilled staff support on a broad range of disability issues.
—Ensure access to knowledgeable benefits counselors who can do the following
• provide information on education and training program options and opportunities available under a broad array of programs such as Adult Education; Individuals with Disability Education Act for those under 22 without a high school degree; Vocational Education and School-to-Work programs;
• address the impact of employment on individual benefits such as SSDI, SSI, TANF, Medicaid, Medicare, subsidized housing, and food stamps;
• provide accurate information on the availability of Social Security work incentive programs and Ticket-to-Work options available to SSDI and SSI recipients;
• make available to employers detailed information on the array of tax benefits and incentives to employers of people with disabilities that provide financial support for workplace modifications and accommodations; and
• leverage the diverse range of program resources that may be critical to successful employment, retention and career advancement such as medical or psychological testing or transportation subsidies available to One-Stop customers in local areas, as applicable.
—Establish and carry out extensive and wide-ranging outreach to the disability community, including those with physical, sensory, developmental/cognitive (mental retardation and learning disabilities, among others), mental and other health related impairments, so that core and Title I workforce services are readily available and welcoming to customers with disabilities;
—Ensure linkages and technical assistance to public and private providers of services to people with disabilities such as centers for independent living; State Developmental Disability Councils; State and local mental health agencies; Federal Social Security Agencies, State Medicaid Agencies, Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities Offices, TANF agencies; public special education and adult education programs, private schools and training programs designed to meet the needs of persons with disabilities, and other non-profit organizations which support integration into the One-Stop delivery system and which have knowledge regarding the benefits of employment and training information and services available through the workforce system.
—Develop One-Stop capacity as a valued provider of choice for beneficiaries of SSDI and SSI, and to facilitate One-Stop eligibility to be an Employment Network provider established under provisions of the TWWIIA, which assumes responsibility for coordination and delivery of services under the Ticket to Work program, meets professional and educational qualifications, where applicable, and provides appropriate employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, or other support services either directly or by entering into agreement with a qualified entity.
• Leverage available funds and services, including TANF and public education resources, currently available to individuals with disabilities under a variety of public and private non-profit resources to achieve the individual objectives of these customers; and
• Provides individual customer choice as a primary, key component of program availability and delivery which provide models for how Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) under Title I of WIA, SSA Ticket-to-Work vouchers, Vocational Rehabilitation resources, and other appropriate funding sources can be used to provide seamless service delivery that is responsive to the customer.
—Implement information technologies which may be used to facilitate linkage or consolidation of information or services provided by existing State, local and other Federal program providers; and/or establish innovative accessible technologies in the workforce system to assure universal access to One-Stop information and resources for individuals with disabilities. Please note: Work Incentive Grant project designs which incorporate development, procurement or implementation of information technologies involving linkage, and/or to assure accessible technologies in the One-Stop setting, must provide a 50 percent grantee match for those Work Incentive Grant funds which will be utilized for this (these) purposes. Also, grant funds directed to development, procurement and implementation of these technologies cannot exceed 10% (not including matching funds) of the total grant award.
To the extent appropriate and practicable, the applicant Work Incentive Grant proposals should be developed in coordination with SSA's Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach Cooperative Agreement program and/or HHS's Medicaid Infrastructure Grant program as part of a multi-pronged approach to increase the employment rate of people with disabilities. For example, an applicant for the Work Incentive Grant might consider applying for the SSA Benefit Planning, Assistance and Outreach Cooperative Agreement program, or coordinate with entities who may be applying, with the intent of establishing benefits planning capacity in a One-Stop Center. However, there may be additional strategies to support the Medicaid infrastructure development.
Likewise, the Department is encouraging coordination with formula and competitive Welfare-to-Work grant programs. Coordination should also occur with State/Local five year plans required under Title I of WIA.
The SSA Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach Cooperative Agreement Request for Proposal and HHS Medicaid Infrastructure Grant Request for Application requirements are accessible through ETA's disAbility Online homepage: http://wdsc.org/disability. Additional information and resources are also available at this website.
The Department shall be responsible for ensuring the effective implementation of each competitive grant project in accordance with the provisions of this announcement and the negotiated grant agreement. Applicants should assume that on-site project reviews will be conducted by Department staff, or their designees periodically throughout the implementation of the grant. Reviews will focus on the timely project implementation, performance in meeting the grant's programmatic goals and objectives, expenditure of grant funds on allowable activities, integration and coordination with other resources and service providers in the local area, and project management and administration in achieving project objectives. Work Incentive Grants may be subject to other additional reviews at the discretion of the Department.
Grantees will be required to submit periodic financial and participant reports under the Work Incentive Grant program covering the workforce area(s) included in the grant project design. Customer survey information will also be required. Specific reporting requirements have not been established at the time of issuance of this Solicitation for Grant Application. However, data collection will probably incorporate some detailed information about the people with disabilities being served under the grant, by the grant applicant and consortium partners where applicable. To the extent possible, reporting will be conducted electronically through web-based applications.
1. Financial reports will be required on a quarterly basis. This will be the Standard Form 269—Financial Status Report (FSR).
2. Customer Satisfaction Surveys: Customer satisfaction surveys will be required to be conducted with people with disabilities applying for services through the One-Stop delivery system(s) participating in the grant award. The Department of Labor will issue guidelines and reporting instructions related to the Customer Satisfaction Survey process at a later date.
3. Other Reporting: The Department of Labor may require additional reporting requirements, including implementation progress reports and quarterly narrative and/or data reports on participants served in the workforce area(s) included in the grant for grant management and knowledge development purposes. The Department of Labor will issue guidelines and reporting instructions related to progress, narrative and participant reporting at a later date.
The Project Narrative, or Section III, of the grant application should provide complete information on how the applicant will address government requirements and statement of work provisions outlined here, and not to exceed forty (40) double-spaced numbered pages, including appendices. The application should include information of the type described below, as appropriate.
Information provided in this section will be evaluated predominately under the “Statement of Need” criteria.
—Identify the number of workforce areas in the State and the jurisdiction of each local workforce investment area(s) in the State.
—Identify what local areas(s) in the State will be covered by the project and whether the project is Statewide, multiple local areas or a single local area.
—Identify consortium members if any, their primary mission irrespective of participation in the grant proposal, and what political and geographic jurisdictions (
—Identify the percent of people with disabilities in the State and/or local area, including the percentage of people who are beneficiaries of SSDI and/or SSI.
—Identify the most recent unemployment rate(s) in the workforce investment area(s) covering the project.
—Describe the significant deficiencies in the State or local workforce investment system that represent barriers to employment for people with disabilities.
—Identify additional State and/or local funds and resources that will be used to support the overall objectives of the grant and which will assist in addressing the identified issues the grant project is addressing.
—For proposals targeted to a specific Indian community or covering multiple Tribal entities which may cut across multiple States and/or local areas, describe the overall approach of the
The Department will evaluate information provided in this section predominately under the “Comprehensive Action Plan/Statement of Need” criteria.
—Describe how the project will address a primary objective of the Work Incentive Grant program to assure the integration of people with disabilities into the workforce investment system, including the availability of WIA Title I programs and services, as well as the many partner programs operating through the One-Stop delivery system.
—Recognizing that the One-Stop delivery system may not have extensive knowledge or skills in working with people with disabilities, describe the level of expertise of the One-Stop system in the local area(s) addressed in the grant and the projects plans for addressing inadequacies.
—Describe the overall status and actions taken to-date by the One-Stop delivery system to address services to people with disabilities. This should include actions to assure State and/or local facilities are physically and programmatically accessible, training provided to staff, the number and percent of people with disabilities receiving services under JTPA and Employment Service programs during the previous three years compared with that of people without disabilities, and plans to increase services to people with disabilities, if applicable.
—Identify the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding or other agreements between Title I of the WIA, State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Agency, the State Rehabilitation Council, and the State and/or local Workforce Investment Board in terms of the provision of services to people with disabilities; the plans for cost sharing; the arrangements for referral of people with disabilities between Title I of the WIA and VR as appropriate; the extent of integration and co-location of VR in One-Stop Centers, including sharing of MIS systems or participation in case management data base technologies; the extent to which there is joint funding of participant services or leveraging of funds to expand access to services; and utilization of Individual Training Accounts (ITA's) for people with disabilities.
—Identify plans and strategies to develop the capacity of the comprehensive One-Stop Center to function as an Employment Network under the TWWIIA. Project plans in this regard should involve building the capacity of the WIA Title I program and One-Stop system so that more in-depth services and information will be readily available to individuals with disabilities. Additionally, the description of increased capacity should be as an adjunct to the State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency which is an automatic Employment Network provider under the TWWIIA. Descriptions may include the planned coordination, interaction and relationship between the universal One-Stop service delivery system and Vocational Rehabilitation services, planned memorandums of understanding on how the Ticket program may be implemented within the One-Stop system or in partnership with non-profit entities in the local area, and expectations for more services directed to SSI and SSDI recipients.
—Identify whether assessment tools are utilized to identify individuals with learning disabilities in the One-Stop delivery system, including (1) whether assessment tools are utilized to identify individuals with learning disabilities in the One-Stop; (2) plans and processes to identify applicable assessment tools, train staff and incorporate such assessments as part of the service delivery structure; and (3) use of individualized, person-driven processes for identification of strengths, needs and desires related to employment.
Information provided in this section will be evaluated predominately under the “Comprehensive Service Strategy” and “Collaboration and Coordination” criteria. This should include the identification and interaction of a variety of disability-related organizations and entities. These may include but should not be limited to the following: Independent Living Centers, State Mental Health, Mental Retardation/Developmental Disability Agencies, State Planning Councils on Developmental Disabilities, State Independent Living Councils (SILCs), State Rehabilitation Councils, State Governors' Committee, State Medicaid Agency, State and/or local TANF agency, Vocational Rehabilitation Agency and local Welfare-to-Work Programs.
—Identify specific organizational/service provider capabilities that will be provided as a result of grant activities to ensure the full range of assistance required for receiving and participating in training, skill development, job development, job placement in unsubsidized employment, job retention services and career advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
—Describe the process that will be used to maintain and expand the service structure for individuals with disabilities accessing the workforce investment system after receipt of the grant funds. Describe what linkages are expected to occur that will be sustained over time and what resources various public and private entities will make available in the workforce system that ensure expanded services and integration of people with disabilities.
—Describe the extent to which people with physical and mental disabilities are represented in the development and implementation of plans to improve and enhance One-Stop services for people with disabilities, plans for outreach and marketing to the disability community and organizations which represent or work with people with disabilities; and plans for training disability-related organizations on the resources and programs available to them in the One-Stop system.
—Describe coordination and linkage with regional Disability Business and Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs) and State Governor's Committees on Employment of People with Disabilities. Have DBTACs provided training to the One-Stop delivery system on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or other disability-related training? If not, are plans to do so incorporated into the applicant project?
—Describe coordination and linkage with the State and local Independent Living Center (CIL) system. Are they part of the consortium membership? If not, what outreach is planned to establish linkage with them and their core constituency of people with disabilities?
—Describe coordination and linkage with Mental Health Departments, Mental Retardation/Developmental Disability Agencies, State Councils on Developmental Disabilities, State Vocational Rehabilitation, and Councils on Employment, and other local provider or advocate organizations serving individuals with developmental and/or psychiatric disabilities. Are they part of the consortium membership? If not, what outreach is planned to establish linkage with them and their core constituency of people with disabilities?
—Describe coordination and linkage with Learning Disabilities and Training Dissemination hub centers established under grants from the Department of Education's Office of Vocational and
—Identify how State TANF programs and Welfare to Work (WtW) competitive grant projects will be linked or leveraged with objectives of the applicant's project. States and local areas have been in the process of implementing numerous WtW projects under formula and discretionary grants. Additionally, many TANF agencies have refocused resources on skill attainment and employment outcomes for TANF recipients. In addition to the fact that many TANF recipients have functional disabilities, many WtW and TANF projects address significant structural barriers to employment which are similar in nature to those facing most individuals with disabilities (
—Describe how the planned project will be coordinated with grant programs which are funded under the SSA Benefits Planning, Assistance and Outreach Cooperative Agreement and HHS Medicaid Infrastructure Grant programs, if applicable.
The Department will evaluate information provided in this section under “Statement of Need” and “Coordination and Collaboration” criteria.
—Identify public and private non-profit provider entities participating in the grant program and what barriers to employment may be addressed by the programs and services that are contributing to the overall applicant proposal. Specifically, describe how the State or local area is addressing (1) health insurance benefits, including relevant Medicaid and/or Medicare provisions, required by many people with disabilities to enter and retain employment; (2) the current transportation infrastructure, the availability of public transportation, and how individuals with all types of disabilities will access training and employment; (3) housing, food stamps and other support services; and (4) assistive technology needs.
—Describe how public supports needed by people with disabilities may be affected by their employment or training and State or local conditions and actions to sustain benefits and services following successful job placement. For example, does the State or local area have provisions to continue supported or Section 8A housing, where applicable, for individuals who enter unsubsidized employment? Has the State adopted Medicaid “buy-in” options, or are there Medicaid waivers which extend health care coverage for individuals who enter employment?
—If the applicant's proposal does not incorporate the capacity for benefits counselors or planners, what coordination is planned that ensures that individuals with disabilities who access One-Stop Center services will be able to obtain accurate work incentive and benefits information from knowledgeable and skilled staff?
The Department will evaluate information provided in this section predominately under the “Innovations and Model Services” criteria.
—Describe how the project will provide innovative approaches to increasing competitive, unsubsidized employment to individuals with disabilities.
—Provide information on how the project adds value to the workforce system from a national perspective (
—Describe investment plans, strategy and rationale for implementation of innovative technologies, whether to establish linkages with disability related entities or to implement innovative accessible technologies (
—Identify the scope of technology implementations, if applicable, and the extent to which implementation is comprehensive and across the workforce area(s) and/or statewide.
—Identify individualized strategies that establish client control of training funds, VR funds, ITAs, or other funding sources to which these individuals may have access, and co-mingle funds in a seamless, customer friendly manner, including plans for obtaining waiver authority to the extent program requirements necessitate this.
—Identify plans or strategies to deploy Ticket-to-Work voucher provisions for beneficiaries of SSDI and recipients of SSI. At the time of this Solicitation for Grant Application, the requirements for implementation of the Ticket will not have been drafted, nor will the number of pilot States participating in a pilot process known. Therefore, the Department recognizes that descriptions for implementing the Ticket may be limited.
—Describe strategies to foster entrepreneurial and self-employment options utilizing ITAs, Plans for Achieving Self-Support (PASS) and other SSA work incentives, and Medicaid coverage for individuals with disabilities who start or return to work.
—Describe strategies to transition youth with disabilities from school-to-work environments using existing systems such as School-to-Work and One-Stop system infrastructures.
—Identify plans for ensuring competitive, unsubsidized employment for individuals with the most significant disabilities, including how the provision of job development, job carving, job coaching, supported employment, and personal assistance services will be addressed when applicable, and plans to integrate individuals with the most significant disabilities into mainstream workforce settings through individualized job development and placement strategies.
—Provide information on how techniques such as job carving and individualized job development may be utilized under Title I of the WIA, or plans to expand this capability.
The Department will evaluate this section predominately under the “Innovations and Model Services” criteria.
—Describe specific approaches for developing relationships with and support of area employers which establish employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities accessing the One-Stop delivery system, including any commitments by employers to hire these individuals.
—Describe opportunities for competitive employment for individuals with disabilities will be provided or developed within the local workforce investment area and how this is unique or different than what is normally performed by the applicant(s).
—Identify available Federal and State tax incentives available to employers when hiring an individual with a disability; how this information will be marketed and disseminated to employers, the individual and workforce staff; and how employers may use such tax credits to address structural and technological accommodation needs.
—Describe opportunities for increasing integrated, competitive employment through use of strategies
The Department will evaluate this section predominately under the “Demonstrated Capability” criteria. Applicants must be able to document that they have systems capable of satisfying the administrative and grant management requirements for Work Incentive Grants.
—Identify the critical activities, time frames and responsibilities for effectively implementing the project, including the management and evaluation process for assuring successful implementation of grant objectives.
—Include a project organizational chart which identifies the staff with key management responsibilities, including a matrix of organizational responsibilities of key entities and participating consortium organizations, where applicable.
—Describe the specific experience of the applicant(s) in serving people with disabilities, in providing workforce services, in addressing specific barriers to employment, in achieving expected outcomes in the delivery of such services/programs, and in implementing and administering specific project plans of the grant project. For example, such information might include the local Department of Transportation as a key partner agency addressing transportation barriers and how this entity has participated in similar efforts in the past and the success of these past efforts, and potential success of coordination on the applicant(s) grant project.
A careful evaluation of applications will be made by a technical review panel who will evaluate the applications against the criteria listed below. The panel results are advisory in nature and not binding on the Grant Officer. The Department may elect to award grants either with or without discussion with the offeror. In situations without discussions, an award will be based on the offeror's signature on the SF 424, which constitutes a binding offer. The Grant Officer may consider any information that is available and will make final award decisions based on what is most advantageous to the Government, considering factors such as:
—Panel findings;
—Geographic distribution of the competitive applications;
—The availability of funds.
The following criteria, and the weights assigned to each, will apply to the review of the responsiveness of the information requested in this application to this announcement:
1. “Statement of Need”, [15 points] which will consider the scope and targeting of the overall project design to address deficiencies and requirements of the current workforce delivery system.
2. “Comprehensive Service Strategy”, [30 points] which will consider the extent and quality of the applicant's plan to improve and enhance workforce delivery services to people with disabilities.
3. “Collaboration and Coordination”, [20 points] which shall consider the extent and quality of the consortium partnerships that are involved in, and making, substantial contributions to the project, including the commitment to maintain and expand the capacity to serve the target population with local and workforce resources over a sustained period of time.
4. “Innovations and Model Services”, [20 points] which shall consider the extent and degree of innovation represented in the applicant plans which go beyond the expected and predictable availability of accessible facilities and programs for people with disabilities, including innovative accessible technologies implemented on a system wide basis.
5. “Demonstrated Capability”, [15 points] which shall consider the extent to which the applicant and its consortium partners demonstrate the knowledge and skills to address the diverse needs and the diversity in population of people with disabilities, and the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the ability to effectively execute grant management responsibilities.
Legal Services Corporation.
Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 regarding statewide planning and Grant Assurances for FY2001.
Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 regarding statewide planning were issued in 1998 to solicit input on and assist recipients of Legal Services Corporation funding in improving the delivery of legal services to low-income persons. Recipients of such funding must also agree to the Grant Assurances for FY2001 as part of the competitive bidding process.
June 26, 2000. Comments must be submitted on or before this date.
Comments should be submitted to Victor M. Fortuno General Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, Legal Services Corporation, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4250; 202-336-8800.
In 1998 the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) issued Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 to all LSC recipients. These program letters solicited input from LSC recipients on improving the delivery of legal services to low-income persons through statewide planning and coordination among LSC recipients. These letters are also available via the Internet at http://ain/ainboard/RFP/Appxcvr.htm in Appendix I. Although not required to publish these documents, LSC has decided to do so. Statewide planning has become an increasingly important aspect of the delivery of legal services to low-income persons.
All recipients of LSC funding must agree to the Grant Assurances. This document is also available via the Internet at http://ain/ainboard/ainboard.htm under Application Forms. The Grant Assurances addresses the recipient's agreement to comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, instructions, etc. and to cooperate fully with all auditing, monitoring and compliance activities and requirements. Although not required to publish this document, LSC has decided to do so.
Comments received by LSC regarding these documents will be considered as part of LSC's ongoing process of evaluating the best means of delivering legal services to low-income persons and ensuring LSC recipient compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, instructions, etc.
This Program Letter calls upon all LSC recipients to participate in a state planning process to examine, from a statewide perspective, what steps should be taken in their states to develop further a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. State planners should evaluate whether all programs are working in a coordinated fashion to assure that pressing client needs are being met, that sufficient capacities for training and information sharing exist, that programs are moving forward together on technology, and are collaborating to increase resources and develop new initiatives to expand the scope and reach of their services.
In states with a number of LSC-funded programs and/or the presence of very small programs, a key question to be answered is whether the current structure of the state delivery system, and specifically the number of programs, constitutes the most effective and economical way to meet client needs throughout the state.
The state planning process should develop a report to be submitted to LSC on or before October 1, 1998. We will be guided by your recommendations when making our funding decisions for FY 1999 and beyond.
1995 Program Letter. In July 1995, in anticipation of Congressional action on LSC's 1996 appropriation, we asked recipients in each state to participate in the development of a plan for the design, configuration and operation of LSC-funded programs in the state. In view of potential LSC funding cuts and Congressional restrictions on client services, we were especially concerned that recipients work closely with other stakeholders (
Responses to Changes in Laws Affecting Clients and LSC Recipients. Much has occurred since August 1995. Fundamental changes have been made in laws and programs affecting eligible clients—changes which have increased clients—need for legal information, advice, and representation. At the same time, LSC appropriation measures have resulted in deep funding cuts for many programs, elimination of LSC funding of national and state support entities, and dramatic changes in the range of services LSC recipients are permitted to perform. In response, many states have initiated planning processes, developed new partnerships to leverage resources, expanded funding sources, implemented new technologies, and launched innovative methods for serving clients.
Efforts to develop and strengthen comprehensive delivery systems in order to improve and expand client services continue in many states. Equal Justice Commissions, Bar sponsored committees, and organizations of legal services providers continue to explore ways to maximize services in a changed and changing environment. LSC supports these ongoing state efforts and encourages others.
1998 Grant Decisions. In the 1998 LSC grant competition, we determined that grants in several states that were eligible for three year funding should be made for a shorter period. For North Carolina, grants were made for one year. For New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia, grants were made for two years. The decision to award grants for a shorter period was made for two reasons: (1) To encourage recipients in these states to develop further their plans for a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system; and, (2) concern that the number of LSC-funded programs in these states may not constitute the most economical and effective configuration for delivering legal services to the low-income community.
1998 Program Letter. This Program Letter calls upon all recipients to re-examine and adjust as necessary their state delivery plans in order to further improve and expand legal services to eligible clients within the state.
In re-evaluating delivery plans, recipients should examine the progress they have made in the past two and one
There are many ways for states to achieve these goals. Many excellent models exist of statewide fundraising, integrated technology, statewide and regional hotlines, pro se projects, taskforces and training. Recipients should evaluate which approaches will work best in their states to achieve an even stronger, more effective system for addressing client needs.
Recipients must also examine how the present configuration of programs, and specifically the number of programs, impacts upon the overall effectiveness of the state delivery system. In this regard, it is especially important that each participant look at client services, not from the view of just one city, or one county, or one program, but from a statewide perspective.
In the past two and one half years, several states have undertaken extensive processes to evaluate their delivery systems and have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, many state planning recommendations. Additionally, some states have ongoing planning processes involving a wide variety of stakeholders in the civil justice system. We do not intend such states to repeat past, or supplant current processes. Instead, we ask recipients to either work within ongoing processes or develop new ones appropriate to the situation in each state. In either case, we hope recipients and other stakeholders will view this process as an opportunity to join together to strengthen the delivery system and improve and expand services to clients.
In this context we call upon each LSC-funded program to share responsibility for ensuring that a statewide planning process, whether ongoing or to be initiated, addresses the questions discussed further below. For each question state planners should:
• Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach;
• Establish goals to strengthen and expand services to eligible clients; and
• Determine the major steps and a timetable necessary to achieve those goals.
A report should be submitted to LSC on or before October 1, 1998.
In exceptional cases, it may not be possible for a state planning process to fully address all of the following questions. In such cases, recipients should contact the LSC staff member responsible for their state.
The questions to be addressed are:
1. How are intake and delivery of advice and referral services structured within the state? What steps can be taken to ensure a delivery network that maximizes client access, efficient delivery, and high quality legal assistance?
2. Is there a state legal services technology plan? How can technological capacities be developed statewide to assure compatibility, promote efficiency, improve quality, and expand services to clients?
3. What are the major barriers low-income persons face in gaining access to justice in the state? What efforts can be taken on a statewide basis to expand client access to the courts, provide preventive legal education and advice, and enhance self-help opportunities for low-income persons?
4. Do program staff and pro bono attorneys throughout the state receive the training and have access to information and expert assistance necessary for the delivery of high quality legal services? How can statewide capacities be developed and strengthened to meet these needs?
5. What is the current status of private attorney involvement in the state? What statewide efforts can be undertaken to increase the involvement of private attorneys in the delivery of legal services?
6. What statewide financial resources are available for legal services to low-income persons within the state? How can these resources be preserved and expanded?
7. Where there are a number of LSC-funded programs and/or the presence of very small programs, how should the legal services programs be configured within the state to maximize the effective and economical delivery of high quality legal services to eligible clients within a comprehensive, integrated delivery system?
How are intake and delivery of advice and referral services structured within the state? What steps can be taken to ensure a delivery network that maximizes client access, efficient delivery, and high quality legal assistance?
A successful intake system is critical to effective and comprehensive delivery of legal services. Over the past two years many programs have instituted centralized telephone intake and delivery systems which provide high quality advice and brief service assistance, and promptly refer clients whose problems require more assistance to program case handlers or other resources. In a number of states, statewide or regional systems, using advanced telephone and computer technology, have consolidated these functions in one location where trained, experienced staff provide prompt access for clients and minimize the risk of multiple referrals or loss of clients. These systems improve the quantity and quality of advice, brief service and referral assistance while increasing the number of extended service cases which can be handled by the program.
State planners should evaluate the current status of intake and delivery of advice and referral services within the state and develop strategies for improvement. Consideration should be given to developing regional and statewide intake and delivery systems which:
• Are client-centered, providing ease of access to legal services and prompt, high quality assistance or referral;
• Use specialization to enhance case evaluation and provision of advice, brief service and referral assistance;
• Make effective use of technology; and
• Provide oversight and follow-up to ensure high quality legal services and client satisfaction. .
Is there a state legal services technology plan? How can technological capacities be developed statewide to assure compatibility, promote efficiency, improve quality, and expand services to clients?
Within individual programs, effective use of technology can reduce the cost and substantially enhance the quality of
Improving and staying current with technology is costly and makes it all the more important that states take a unified approach and develop a technology plan that will maximize collective capacity while minimizing cost. A state technology plan should establish reasonable goals and set forth steps to:
• Assure that all programs have networked computer access for all staff; integrated case management; computerized timekeeping; E-mail and the ability to electronically transfer documents; computerized financial management systems; and technological support;
• Develop or improve compatible technological capacities which will allow all staff, statewide, to communicate with each other, share information, and take advantage of other efficiencies made possible by computerization; and
• Use new technologies to provide legal and program resource information to clients and other interested persons.
What are the major barriers low-income persons face in gaining access to justice in the state? What efforts can be taken on a statewide basis to expand client access to the courts, provide preventive legal education and advice, and enhance self-help opportunities for low-income persons?
Pro se, community legal education and access to courts efforts have great potential to address many of the legal needs of low-income persons. Programs in many states utilize these methods to increase legal information available to the public, empower clients to advocate on their own behalf, and increase access to the courts for all low-income people. Given the intensive effort required to implement such strategies, and the influence state laws and rules have on such initiatives, often these results can be realized more easily by coordinated state level efforts. In several states, for example, collaboration with state bar committees and state judicial administrations has resulted in rule changes, publication of pro se oriented materials and more accessible court systems. Likewise, the development of self-help and community legal education materials has benefitted from concerted statewide efforts involving a variety of organizations working to make justice more accessible.
State planners should evaluate the status of pro se, community legal education, and access efforts in their state and determine what steps should be taken statewide to enhance their effectiveness in meeting client needs. Consideration should be given to:
• Statewide coordination and/or production of pro se and community education materials, such as brochures in multiple languages, videos, cable-access TV programs, and projects designed to take advantage of new technologies such as computerized pro se programs and the world wide web; and
• State level initiatives, including efforts with bar associations, the judiciary and other interested parties to increase access to the courts.
Do program staff and pro bono attorneys throughout the state receive the training and have access to information and expert assistance necessary for the delivery of high quality legal services? How can statewide capacities be developed and strengthened to meet these needs?
In the last two years several states have developed new or strengthened existing capacities to ensure that staff and pro bono attorneys throughout the state receive necessary training and have access to information and expert assistance essential for the delivery of high quality legal services. These states employ a variety of methods to provide staff and pro bono attorneys with training on substantive law and skills development, practice manuals and related poverty law materials, information on poverty law developments and strategies, and co-counseling for less experienced staff and pro bono attorneys. Communication, planning and ongoing discussion concerning major legal needs, poverty law developments, effectiveness of approaches, and commonalities in legal work, helps ensure productive use of resources. The use of new technologies has helped maximize the effectiveness of these efforts.
State planners should evaluate current capacities for the provision of training and related services essential for the delivery of high quality legal services. Planners should:
• Assess how a statewide approach can address the needs for these services of staff and pro bono attorneys throughout the state; and
• Determine the steps necessary to provide these services as effectively and efficiently as possible.
What is the current status of private attorney involvement in the state? What statewide efforts can be undertaken to increase the involvement of private attorneys in the delivery of legal services?
In the past two years, several states have been successful in enlisting or re-enlisting the state Bar, the judiciary and others in developing and supporting private attorney involvement throughout the state. These efforts have helped local private attorney involvement programs expand participation rates and the range and types of services available to clients. State planners should evaluate the current status of private attorney involvement in the state and consider how statewide strategies can increase engagement of pro bono attorneys and benefit clients throughout the state, including areas of the state with lower private attorney involvement.
Consideration should be given to:
• Renewed efforts to involve the Bar, the judiciary and other leaders in the legal community in promoting private attorney involvement;
• Providing greater opportunities for attorney participation in a full spectrum of legal work, including advice and brief service, negotiation, administrative representation, pro se classes, transactional assistance, and simple and complex litigation;
• Providing greater opportunities for attorneys to assist programs with training, co-counseling and mentoring staff; and
• Providing greater opportunities for law schools, corporate counsel, government attorneys, and other professionals to engage in pro bono activities.
What statewide financial resources are available for legal services to low-income persons within the state? How can these resources be preserved and expanded?
In the past two years, many programs have increased the resources available to them through innovative grant projects, local fundraising and other efforts. Even more dramatic, however, are the increases programs have received in many states through collective development and/or expansion of statewide revenues such as state appropriations, filing fee surcharges, state fundraising campaigns, state bar dues checkoffs and direct state bar grants. Whether new or expanded, these revenues have almost always been the product of thoughtful planning with programs and other stakeholders working together.
State planners should evaluate the possibilities for further statewide resource development and develop a statewide strategy to preserve, build, and/or create new financial and non-financial resources in their state. Since program efforts to build such statewide resources are more successful when many stakeholders participate, it is especially important for planners to involve a variety of community leaders in these efforts.
Where there are a number of LSC-funded programs and/or the presence of very small programs, how should the legal services programs be configured within the state to maximize the effective and economical delivery of high quality legal services to eligible clients within a comprehensive, integrated delivery system?
In most states, the present delivery structure reflects national funding decisions made in the 1970's. In many states, those decisions were not determined by analysis of what delivery structure would yield the most economical and effective services to clients throughout the state. Moreover, those decisions were made before such major developments in legal services delivery such as IOLTA funding, private attorney involvement, law school clinical programs, hotlines, the emergence of other civil legal aid providers, and restrictions on recipients' non-LSC funds; and before the information revolution and the opportunities it presents with personal computers, E-mail, sophisticated telephone technology, and the Internet. In light of developments over the past twenty-five years, and especially since 1995, it is time to take a fresh look and re-evaluate those structures.
Re-evaluation is particularly critical in states with a number of LSC-funded programs and/or the presence of very small programs. States with many programs often suffer from uneconomical and inefficient redundancy of effort, or no effort at all, in technology, training, fundraising, and development of client services such as intake, advice and referral systems or client education materials. Similarly, small programs often lack the resources necessary to develop proper staff supervision or appropriate specialization, or to acquire current technology necessary for maximum effectiveness.
In addition, while individual programs may excel, a large number of programs or the presence of small programs may result in unnecessary diversion of the state's resources from client services to administrative overhead. Each program, no matter how large or small, must devote significant resources to A-133 audits, state and federal tax and wage reports, funding applications, recordkeeping, personnel policies, purchase and maintenance of technology and equipment, and other administrative tasks. Experienced and accomplished lawyers spend time on program administration when they could be using their talents to represent clients, train or mentor new lawyers and otherwise lead their program's legal work.
Where these conditions exist, state planners must consider whether consolidation of programs would make better use of resources available in the state.
There is no magic number of programs or a single delivery model that fits all states. In some states, a statewide LSC provider makes the most sense; in others, a regional approach or other configuration may be appropriate. Each state must examine what configuration, from a statewide perspective, maximizes services and benefits for clients throughout the state. Factors to be considered include:
• Size, complexity, cultural and ethnic diversity/homogeneity of client population.
• Geographic, physical, and historical distinctions and affinities within the state.
• Variation in local client needs and ability to respond and set priorities accordingly.
• Assessments of programs' performance and capacity to deliver effective and efficient legal services in accordance with LSC and other professional criteria.
• Ease and efficiency of client access to services and opportunities for improvement.
• Capacity to efficiently and effectively conduct community legal education, pro se and outreach activities.
• Level, uniformity, and plans for further development of technological capacity.
• Current levels of private bar involvement and potential for expansion.
• The availability of training, expert assistance, and information about legal developments.
• Current funding sources and potential to expand resources available to all programs.
• Cultural and ethnic diversity of program leadership and management.
• Relative costs associated with fiscal and administrative responsibilities and potential savings in management, board and administrative costs.
In making grants for FY 1999 and beyond, we will look closely at each state where there is currently a number of LSC-funded programs and/or the presence of very small programs to assess whether careful consideration has been given to consolidation of LSC programs. We hope, and have faith, that in these states, this planning process will result in plans for merger and consolidation of programs and integration of services on a broader scale than we have previously seen, and that each state's plan will result in a configuration that is efficient and effective in providing access to justice for the state's low-income clients.
LSC staff will be contacting recipients to discuss this Program Letter. In the meantime, if you have questions, please contact the LSC staff member responsible for your state.
On February 12, 1998, the Corporation issued Program Letter 98-1 calling upon all LSC recipients to participate in a state planning process to examine, from a statewide perspective, what steps should be taken in their states to further develop a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. The Letter poses seven questions recipients are to address in their planning processes and requests recipients to submit a report to LSC on or before October 1, 1998. Many
The attached State Planning Considerations have been developed to provide recipients and other stakeholders with more information about statewide goals, capacities and approaches recipients should consider in their planning processes. A number of other sources of information that may assist state planners and upon which these Considerations draw are referenced in the Planning Considerations. We hope these Planning Considerations will help states develop effective plans to strengthen their delivery systems and services to clients. We encourage recipients with any questions about the State Planning Considerations or planning process to contact the LSC staff member responsible for their state.
The Corporation is directed under the LSC Act to “insure that grants and contracts are made so as to provide the most economical and effective delivery of legal assistance to persons in both urban and rural areas.”
The state planning process will provide information that helps LSC determine the duration of grants for service areas in the 1999 competition,
In the 1998 LSC grant competition, we determined that grants in several states that were eligible for three year funding would be made for a shorter period. The decision to award grants for a shorter period was made for two reasons: (1) To encourage recipients in these states to develop further their plans for a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system; and (2) concern that the configuration of LSC-funded programs in these states did not constitute the most economical and effective structure for delivering legal services to the low-income community.
As with the 1998 competition, LSC will take into account state delivery plans and configuration of programs in determining the duration of grants for service areas now being competed. Where LSC believes states need to further develop their plans for a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system or where LSC remains concerned about the configuration of LSC-funded service areas, grants will be made for less than three years.
The state planning process will not affect decisions about the number, size or configuration of service areas in competition this year.
Information received through the planning process will affect future decisions regarding the most appropriate number, size and configuration of LSC-funded service areas to be competed for the year 2000 and beyond. This includes service areas that become scheduled for those years because of one or two year grant awards made in the present 1999 competition.
The state planning process will not affect decisions about the number, size or configuration of service areas up for renewal or the duration of grant renewals,
The attached Instructions for State Planning Reports provide information about the structure and format of the reports due at LSC on or before October 1, 1998. Please contact the LSC staff member responsible for your state if you have any questions.
Please submit reports to the Office of Program Operations on or before October 1, 1998. Reports should be no longer than 35 pages and should contain the name and telephone number of a contact person(s). The report should:
A. Briefly describe the state planning process and participants.
B. Address the following areas in the order presented. In addressing each area, please consider LSC's State Planning Considerations and:
• Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach;
• Establish goals to strengthen and expand services to eligible clients; and
• Determine the major steps and a timetable necessary to achieve those goals.
How are intake and delivery of advice and referral services structured within the state? What steps can be taken to ensure a delivery network that maximizes client access, efficient delivery, and high quality legal assistance?
Is there a state legal services technology plan? How can technological capacities be developed statewide to assure compatibility, promote efficiency, improve quality, and expand services to clients?
What are the major barriers low-income persons face in gaining access to justice in the state? What efforts can be taken on a statewide basis to expand client access to the courts, provide preventive legal education and advice, and enhance self-help opportunities for low-income persons?
Do program staff and pro bono attorneys throughout the state receive the training and have access to information and expert assistance necessary for the delivery of high quality legal services? How can statewide capacities be developed and strengthened to meet these needs?
What is the current status of private attorney involvement in the state? What statewide efforts can be undertaken to increase the involvement of private attorneys in the delivery of legal services?
What statewide financial resources are available for legal services to low-income persons within the state? How can these resources be preserved and expanded?
How should the legal services programs be configured within the state to maximize the effective and economical delivery of high quality
If applicant is successful and receives an LSC grant or contract,
Applicant Hereby Assures and Certifies That:
1. It will comply with the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974 as amended (LSC Act), and any applicable appropriations acts and any other applicable law, all requirements of the rules and regulations, policies, guidelines, instructions, and other directives of the Legal Services Corporation (Corporation or LSC), including the LSC
2. It will not use funds received from a source other than the Legal Services Corporation for any activity inconsistent with the requirements of Public Law 106-113, Public Law 105-277, Public Law 105-119 and Public Law 104-134.
3. If the Applicant is a non-profit organization, its governing board will set specific priorities in writing, consistent with the requirements of 45 CFR Part 1620.
4. It agrees to be subject to all provisions of federal law relating to the proper use of federal funds listed in 45 CFR 1640.2(a)(1). Before the initiation of the contract, the Applicant 's employees and board members will have been informed of the federal law and its consequences as required in 45 CFR 1640.3.
5. It has the legal authority to apply for and receive a grant from the Legal Services Corporation.
6. It will provide legal services in accordance with the plans set out in its grant application, as modified in further negotiations with the Corporation, and agrees to provide high quality, economical, and effective legal assistance, as measured by generally accepted professional standards, the provisions of the LSC Act, or a rule, regulation or guidance issued by the Corporation.
7. It will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, disability, national origin, or any other basis prohibited by law against: (1) Any person applying for employment or employed by the Applicant; or (2) any person seeking assistance from the Applicant or other program(s) supported in whole or in part by this grant.
8. It will provide the Corporation with copies of the following policies applicable to the employees, partners, and applicants for employment funded in whole or in part under this grant: its Equal Opportunity Policy Statement, including its Complaint Review Procedure or internal means of handling employee grievances; and its Sexual Harassment Policy, including an effective complaint procedure. Each of these will have been reviewed and approved by its governing or policy board within the last three years. It will notify the Corporation prior to the implementation of changes to its Equal Opportunity Policy Statement.
9. Notwithstanding grant assurance number 10 below, and § 1006(b)(3) of the LSC Act, 42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(3), it shall make available financial records, time records, retainer agreements, client trust fund and eligibility records, and client names, except for those reports or records subject to the attorney-client privilege, to the Corporation and any federal department or agency that is auditing or monitoring the activities of the Corporation or of the Applicant and any independent auditor or monitor receiving federal funds to conduct such auditing or monitoring, including any auditor or monitor of the Corporation.
10. It will cooperate with all reasonable and necessary information collection, including surveys, questionnaires, monitoring, audit, case statistical report (CSR) data, compliance and evaluation activities undertaken by the Corporation or its agents. During normal business hours it will give any authorized representative of the Corporation or the Comptroller General of the United States access to and copies of all original records, books, papers and documents pertaining to the grant in its possession, custody or control, except for that properly subject to the attorney-client privilege, applicable rules of professional responsibility or attorney work product which may be withheld to the extent consistent with grant assurance 9 above. Access must be provided to materials with information otherwise available in the public record (
11. It agrees to implement all specific record keeping requirements contained in the LSC Act, regulations, appropriations act, other applicable law, and other applicable LSC directives and to implement, as required, any additional specific record keeping requirements that may be forthcoming from the Corporation during the grant period.
12. It will give written notice to the Corporation within thirty (30) calendar days after any of the following occurrences which involve activities funded by the grant:
a. A decision to close and/or relocate any main or staffed branch office;
b. Change of Chairperson of the governing/policy body;
c. Change of chief executive officer;
d. Change in its Charter, Articles of Incorporation, By-laws or governing body structure;
e. Receipt of any notice of a claim for attorneys' fees under the provisions of § 1006(f) of the LSC Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2996e(f). The Applicant will also forward, upon receipt, a copy of the pleading requesting these attorneys' fees; or
f. Change in the Independent Public Accountant performing the grantee's annual financial audit.
13. It agrees that, prior to any merger or consolidation or other change in its current identity or status as a legal entity, it will provide the Corporation with sixty (60) days written notice. If it proposes to transfer its interests in its LSC grant to another entity pursuant to a merger or consolidation, it will seek approval from the Corporation for such transfer and will submit a Successor in Interest Agreement for approval by the Corporation.
14. In the event that the applicant ceases to be a recipient of LSC grant funds during the 2001 grant term for whatever reason,
a. It agrees to provide the Corporation with written notice at least sixty (60)
b. It will submit to the LSC, Office of Program Performance, at the time that it provides the written notice in (a) above that it is voluntarily ceasing to be a recipient of LSC grant funds or within fifteen (15) days from being notified by LSC that it will cease to be a recipient of LSC grant funds, a plan for the orderly conclusion of the role and responsibilities of the applicant as a recipient of LSC funds. The plan should describe:
1. The immediate transition planning with the new provider, particularly as related to intake, accounting of all open cases (including PAI cases) and transfer of existing cases and contracts;
2. The disposition of the recipient's fund balance, if any, pursuant to 45 CFR Part 1628. The applicant understands that the LSC fund balance amount, including any derivative income from LSC-funded activities which exceeds the 10-25 percent threshold amount pursuant to 45 CFR Section 1628.3(d), unless waived by LSC in writing, shall be returned to the Corporation;
3. An accounting of all real property purchased in whole or in part with LSC funds. The applicant understands and agrees to abide by any agreement it has with the Corporation governing the purchase of real property in whole or in part with LSC funds. The accounting should include:
i. The address and a brief description of the property and the date it was acquired;
ii. The total amount of funds expended to acquire or improve the property, including principal and interest payments, and payment for capital improvements;
iii. The total amount of LSC funds expended to acquire or improve the property, including principal and interest payments, and payment for capital improvements;
iv. The fair market value of the property;
v. A statement indicating the program's plans for disposing of the property; and
vi. Copies of any agreements or contracts governing the disposition of the property.
4. The total costs associated with cessation of LSC funding, and funds available to meet those costs, supported by a budget detailing the planned close out expenditures, and plans for securing payment or reimbursement due under contract from non-LSC sources; and
5. An accounting of all personal/non-expendable property purchased in whole or in part with LSC funds, which has a current book or market value exceeding $1,000. The accounting list should include for each item of property:
i. A brief description of the property item;
ii. The date of acquisition of the property item;
iii. The total amount of funds expended to acquire the property;
iv. The amount of LSC funds expended to acquire the property;
v. The fair market value of the property;
vi. A plan for disposing of all such property, pursuant to the 1981 Property Management Manual for LSC Programs or its duly adopted successor; and
vii. If the property is to be transferred, an assurance that the program, acquiring the property, will use the property in connection with the delivery of legal assistance to low-income persons.
c. It shall certify at the time it submits the plan in (b) above that an Independent Public Accountant will audit the recipient's 2000 financial statements, internal controls and compliance with applicable laws and regulations in accordance with the
d. It shall certify at the time it submits the plan in (a) above that it will submit Grant Activity Reports in a format specified by the Corporation in a timely manner;
e. It shall participate in an orderly and professional transition of functions to the new provider to deliver services in the service area; and
f. The recipient understands and agrees that, after it gives notice to LSC or after receipt of notice from LSC of the cessation of funding, the receipt of all future installments after such notice shall be contingent upon satisfactory completion of all closeout obligations imposed by the Corporation including the obligations described herein.
15. It will give telephonic notice to the LSC Office of Inspector General (OIG) within two (2) working days of the discovery of any information that indicates the Applicant may have been the victim of misappropriation, embezzlement or other theft or loss of any funds (LSC funds, non-LSC funds used for the provision of legal assistance or client funds). Such notice shall be followed by written notice by mail or facsimile within ten (10) calendar days. Written notice of a theft of any property other than funds will be provided to the OIG within ten (10) calendar days from the time of the discovery of the theft. The required notice shall be provided regardless of whether the funds or property are recovered.
16. It will notify the Corporation within twenty (20) days of any of the following arising from an LSC funded activity: a monetary judgment; sanction or penalty entered against the program for matters such as Rule 11 sanctions; malpractice judgments; EEO claims; IRS penalties; penalties arising out of the Americans with Disabilities Act; or voluntary settlement of any similar action or matter; or any other matter which may have a substantial impact on its delivery of services.
17. It understands and agrees that it will arrange for an audit and execute an agreement with its auditor that meets the requirements of LSC's
18. It shall cooperate with the Corporation in the Corporation's efforts to follow up on the reportable conditions, findings, and recommendations found by LSC, the Government Accounting Office, and/or the Applicant's independent public accountants to ensure that instances of deficiencies and noncompliance are resolved in a timely manner. Applicant management shall expeditiously resolve all such reported conditions, findings, and recommendations, including those of sub-recipients, to the satisfaction of the Corporation.
19. It understands that the LSC Office of Inspector General may remove, suspend or bar an independent public accountant, upon a showing of good cause and after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
20. It certifies that it has a computer that meets or exceeds the following specifications: Pentium/266mhz, or equivalent computer system, 64 megabytes of Random Access Memory; 4 gigabyte hard disk drive; color
The applicant certifies that it has, or will obtain, access to e-mail on each casehandler's desk
21. It will submit, for each year of the grant and for each service area for which a grant is awarded, Grant Activity Reports in a format and at a time determined by the Corporation. If, during the course of the grant year, Grant Activity Reports no longer accurately reflect actual activity (
22. It is aware of and agrees that an award of a multi-year grant under the competitive bidding process does not obligate LSC to disburse any funds that are not authorized or appropriated by Congress nor does it preclude the imposition of additional conditions, by LSC or the Congress, on any funds that are so disbursed. During calendar year 2001, authority for LSC to disburse some of the funds under the grant award may be rescinded by Congress, or sequestered, thereby reducing the actual amount of funds disbursed under the grant. Further, additional restrictions may be imposed on the use of funds as a result of such appropriation, authorization legislation, or other law. In subsequent years, the amount of and conditions upon funding may be changed to conform to Congressional appropriation levels and legislated restrictions. Such changes and reductions, however implemented by the Legal Services Corporation, shall not constitute a termination or suspension.
23. It will maintain during the grant period and for a period of six (6) years from the date of termination of the grant all records pertaining to the grant. With respect to financial records, it will maintain records and supporting documentation sufficient for the Corporation, or an independent auditor selected by the Corporation, to audit those records and determine whether the costs incurred and billed are reasonable, allowable and necessary under the terms of the grant. In this regard, the Applicant will permit the Corporation or its auditor to review the originals of all financial records and supporting documentation, procedures and internal control systems. Additionally, the Corporation retains the right to perform, or engage independent auditors to perform such an audit, whether during or subsequent to the grant period.
24. It shall retain closed client files for a period of not less than five (5) years.
We have read these assurances and conditions and understand that if this application is approved for funding, the grant and all funds derived therefrom will be subject to these assurances. We certify that the Applicant will comply with these assurances if the application is approved.
The National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the following meetings of the Humanities Panel will be held at the Old Post Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
Laura S. Nelson, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC 20506; telephone (202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on (202) 606-8282.
The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
1.
2.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Day 1 (May 31): Members will review technical comments received and will discuss revisions to report; an opportunity for public comment will be provided in late afternoon.
Day 2 (June 1): Discussion of technical comments and revisions will continue.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of receipt of a request from Plateau Resources Limited to amend Source Material License SUA-1371 for the Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill in Garfield County, Utah to authorize the receipt and disposal of Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 11e.(2) byproduct material and notice of opportunity for a hearing.
In a letter dated March 22, 2000, Plateau Resources Limited (PRL) requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend Source Material License SUA-1371 for the Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill in Garfield County, Utah to authorize the receipt and disposal of Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), 11e.(2) byproduct material. The AEA defines 11e.(2) byproduct material as “the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content.” In support of its letter request, PRL enclosed a detailed report titled Supplement to Environmental Report, also dated March 22, 2000. The Supplement to Environmental Report provides the basis for the PRL request, a detailed description of the proposed action, and an environmental assessment of the impacts of the proposal to receive and dispose of off-site generated 11e.(2) byproduct material.
Mr. Richard Weller, Uranium Recovery and Low-Level Waste Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7-J8, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 415-7287.
The uranium mill at Shootaring Canyon operated for only three months in 1982, generating a small amount of mill tailings (11e.(2) byproduct material). The mill has been on standby status since that time. Currently, the impoundment at Shootaring Canyon for disposal of uranium mill tailings is filled to only about 1% of its licensed capacity and PRL proposes to use a portion of this available capacity to receive and dispose of off-site generated 11e.(2) byproduct material. PRL intends to employ the proper procedures and controls to ensure that only 11e.(2) byproduct material will be accepted for disposal.
PRL's request to amend Source Material License SUA-1371 to authorize the receipt and disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material, including the report titled Supplement to Environmental Report, is being made available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington DC 20555.
The NRC hereby provides notice of an opportunity for a hearing on the license amendment request under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L, “Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and Operator Licensing Proceedings.” Pursuant to § 2.1205(a), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a request for a hearing. In accordance with § 2.1205(d), a request for a hearing must be filed within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
(1) By delivery to the Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff of the Office of the Secretary at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852; or
(2) By mail or telegram addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f), each request for a hearing must also be served, by delivering it personally or by mail, to:
(1) The applicant, Plateau Resources Limited, 877 North 8th West, Riverton, Wyoming 82501, Attention: Fred Craft; and
(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the Executive Director for Operations, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 of the NRC's regulations, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must describe in detail:
(1) The interest of the requestor in the proceeding;
(2) How that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in § 2.1205(h);
(3) The requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and
(4) The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with § 2.1205(d).
The request must also set forth the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes a hearing.
In addition, members of the public may provide comments on the subject application within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Any hearing that is requested and granted will be held in accordance with the Commission's “Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and Operator Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1:00 p.m., Monday, June 5, 2000; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 6, 2000.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at the Four Seasons Hotel, One Logan Square, in the North Ballroom.
June 5 (Closed); June 6 (Open).
David G. Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.
Section 1014(e) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires a monthly report listing all budget authority for the current fiscal year for which, as of the first day of the month, a special message had been transmitted to Congress.
This report gives the status, as of May 1, 2000, of three rescission proposals and two deferrals contained in one special message for FY 2000. The message was transmitted to Congress on February 9, 2000.
As of May 1, 2000, three rescission proposals totaling $128 million have been transmitted to the Congress. Attachment C shows the status of the FY 2000 rescission proposals.
As of May 1, 2000, $594 million in budget authority was being deferred from obligation. Attachment D shows the status of each deferral reported during FY 2000.
The special message containing information on the rescission proposals and deferrals that are covered by this cumulative report are printed in the edition of the
65 FR 9017, Wednesday, February 23, 2000
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to allow the General Motors Corporation (“GM”) corporate action to be processed through NSCC's continuous net settlement (“CNS”) system.
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
GM has offered to exchange 1.065 shares of Class H common stock for each share of $1
For the purposes of processing this tender offer only, the following additional procedures will be followed: NSCC will process both the round-lot (shareholders of more than 100 shares) and the odd-lot (shareholders of 99 shares or less) portions of this tender offer by using both the CNS G and H reorganization subaccounts. The round-lot portion of this offer will be processed in the CNS G account and the odd-lot portion of this offer will be processed in the CNS H account. This differentiation will permit NSCC to credit long participants with positions in the H account at 100 percent and positions in the G account at the amount determined in accordance with the terms of the offer. Long participants must follow normal CNS by 6:00 p.m. on expiration plus two (“E+2”). Short participant will receive their potential liability report as usual on the morning of E+2 and will receive the liability report on the morning of E+4. NSCC notes that the total number of shares for which short participants will be liable will be based on the total number of odd lot shares plus the number of round lot shares eligible for the exchange. Submission of shares by a long participant to the G and H subaccounts constitutes a representation by such participant that the request for protection conforms to the terms of the offer.
In addition to processing the corporate action as described above, NSCC will take the following steps with respect to the broker solicitation fee. NSCC will establish positions in a “USER” CUSIP for all shares moved to CNS subaccounts G and H (long and short). These positions do not represent separate instructions for the delivery and receipt of any shares. These positions will be valued at .01 cent per share. On the same day that the positions are established, the corresponding values will be debited and credited through NSCC. Reversals of these amounts will take place through NSCC the following business day.
NSCC will issue special receive and deliver instructions naming long and short participants for positions established in the “USER” CUSIP. Each special deliver instruction issued to a short participant represents liability to the named contra participant for any solicitation fees for which such contra participant is entitled to make claim under the terms of the corporate action. All such claims will be made directly between the parties as promptly as possible and are not guaranteed by NSCC.
NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have an impact on or impose a burden on competition.
No written comments have been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and particularly with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).
NSCC has requested that the Commission approve the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication of the notice of the filing. The Commission finds good cause for approving the rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication because such approval will allow NSCC to process this corporate action in the CNS system.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-00-06 and should be submitted by June 15, 2000.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The U.S. Small Business Administration National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board will hold a public meeting on Sunday, August 6, 2000, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Double Tree Hotel, Portland, Maine to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others present.
For further information, please write or call Ellen Thrasher, U. S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20416. Telephone number (202) 205-6817.
The U. S. Small Business Administration, North Florida District Office, Jacksonville, Florida, Advisory Council will hold a public meeting from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., June 15, 2000, at the Caribe Royale Resort, 14300 International Drive, Orlando, Florida, in conjunction with the SBA Florida State Lenders' Conference, to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of the U. S. Small Business Administration, or others present. For further information, write or call Claudia D. Taylor, U. S. Small Business Administration, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite 100-B, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7504, telephone (904) 443-1933.
Request for Proposals.
The Humphrey Fellowships and Institutional Linkages Branch of the Office of Global Educational Programs of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs announces an open competition for the Civic Education Curriculum Development and Teacher Training Project for Romania. Public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in IRS regulation 26 CFR 1.501c may submit proposals to cooperate with the Bureau in the administration of a two-year project to support the development and implementation of new curriculum units for an eleventh grade civic education and comparative government course in Romania. The grant will award up to $194,000 to facilitate the project. The U.S. organization will work in coordination with the Ministry of Education and its appointees in Romania; the public affairs section of the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest; and an advisory group of Romanian civic educators. The program will comprise two phases of activity: (1) Selection of an eight-member curriculum development team of Romanian educators and preliminary consultations in Bucharest; (2) an eight- to ten-week U.S.-based curriculum development workshop in which the team will produce draft curriculum units and a teacher's manual for an eleventh-grade comparative government course.
In addition to the activity described in this solicitation, additional program activities may be undertaken during a third phase. Contingent upon successful completion of Phases I and II, the grantee may be invited to continue program activities with additional funding that may be provided by the Bureau. These activities would include follow-up consultations in Romania to assist in the further development, review, and field-testing of the draft curricular materials and in the training of a larger group of Romanian practitioners in their utilization.
The Bureau solicits detailed proposals from U.S. educational institutions and public and private non-profit organizations to develop and administer this project. Grantee organizations will consult regularly with the Bureau and with the public affairs section at the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest with regard to participant selection, program implementation, direction, and assessment. Proposals should demonstrate an understanding of the issues confronting education in Romania as well as expertise in civic education, political science, and curriculum development. The Bureau encourages applicants who can draw on the contributions of political scientists to civic education and comparative government curricula in the United
The funding authority for the program cited above is provided through the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act. Programs and projects must conform with Bureau requirements and guidelines outlined in the Solicitation Package. The programs and projects of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs are subject to availability of funds.
Grants should begin on or around September 1, 2000, with Phase I of the project, in which a curriculum development team of eight practitioners (
In Phase II, members of the curriculum development team will spend approximately eight to ten weeks in a highly structured U.S.-based workshop to be sponsored and organized by the U.S. grantee organization, and will attend focused curriculum seminars; observe relevant aspects of the U.S. educational system; and begin drafting teacher and student materials for the curriculum units in consultation with U.S. specialists. The grantee organization will be responsible for introducing the Romanian team to leading U.S. political science practitioners and civic educators with expertise that is pertinent to the topics to be explored, and to a broad range of relevant resources. The team should be familiarized with methods for effectively utilizing civic education and political science resources from various levels in a classroom setting. The workshop schedule should incorporate significant time for both individual and group work on drafting materials as well as intensive training on specific approaches to the teaching, development, and revision of civic education and comparative government topics. In addition, the workshop should include field experiences which are relevant to the materials being produced (such as visits to schools, matching the Romanian educators with U.S. teachers, and mentored attendance at professional association meetings). The grantee organization will cooperate with the curriculum development team, Romanian educators, and the Ministry of Education in Romania to design a pilot-test program for selected schools in Romania.
Possible future activities include work by the curriculum development team in centers throughout Romania with teacher trainers, local civic education specialists, political science specialists from Romanian universities, U.S. specialists from the grantee organization, and other Romanian specialists to provide introductory training for a larger group of practitioners in methods for testing and utilizing the draft curriculum units in civic education/comparative government classrooms. Revision of the draft curricular materials based on the results of field testing may be completed by the grantee organization and the Romanian curriculum development team during future phases of activity.
During these phases the Romanian Ministry of Education will provide the following assistance to the participants:
(1) Provide a contract for paid leave time for the curriculum development team during their stays in the U.S. and the subsequent in-service training work;
(2) Facilitate the logistics of in-service training sessions for teachers by providing appropriate space at regional teacher training centers (Casa Corpului Didactic).
U.S. lecturers and consultants participating in the project must be U.S. citizens. Programs must comply with J-1 visa regulations. Please refer to Program Specific Guidelines POGI) in the Solicitation Package for further information. Administration of the program must be in compliance with reporting and withholding regulations for federal, state, and local taxes as applicable. Recipient organizations should demonstrate tax regulation adherence in the proposal narrative and budget.
Grants awarded to eligible organizations with less than four years of experience in conducting international exchange programs will be limited to $60,000.
Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire program. Awards may not exceed $194,000. There must be a summary budget as well as breakdowns reflecting both administrative and program budgets. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. The summary and detailed program and administrative budgets should be accompanied by a narrative which provides a brief rationale for each line item. The total administrative costs funded by the Bureau must be limited and reasonable.
Allowable costs for the program include the following:
(1) Administrative Costs, including salaries and benefits, of grantee organization.
(2) Program Costs, including general program costs and program costs for each Romanian participant in the U.S.-based curriculum development seminar.
Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions.
All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFP should reference
The Humphrey Fellowships and Institutional Linkages Branch, ECA/A/S/U, Room 349, U.S. Department of State, 301 4th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20547, telephone 202 619-5289 and fax 202 401-1433, or hiemstra@pd.state.gov to request a Solicitation Package. The Solicitation Package contains detailed award criteria, required application forms, specific budget instructions, and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. Please specify Bureau Program Officer Paul Hiemstra on all other inquiries and correspondence.
Please read the complete
The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's website at http://exchanges.state.gov/education/rfps. Please read all information before downloading.
All proposal copies must be received at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs by 5 p.m. Washington, DC time on Friday, June 23, 2000. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Documents postmarked the due date but received on a later date will not be accepted. Each applicant must ensure that the proposals are received by the above deadline.
Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The original and 8 copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/A/S/U-00-11, Office of Grants Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 336, 301 4th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20547.
Applicants must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal on a 3.5” diskette, formatted for DOS. These documents must be provided in ASCII text (DOS) format with a maximum line length of 65 characters. The Bureau will transmit these files electronically to the public affairs section at the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest for its review, with the goal of reducing the time it takes to get Embassy comments for the Bureau's grants review process.
Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and physical challenges. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the “Support for Diversity” section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into the total proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy, ‘the Bureau’ shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Proposals should reflect advancement of this goal in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible.
The Year 2000 (Y2K) issue is a broad operational and accounting problem that could potentially prohibit organizations from processing information in accordance with Federal management and program specific requirements including data exchange with the Bureau. The inability to process information in accordance with Federal requirements could result in grantees' being required to return funds that have not been accounted for properly.
The Bureau therefore requires all organizations use Y2K compliant systems including hardware, software, and firmware. Systems must accurately process data and dates (calculating, comparing and sequencing) both before and after the beginning of the year 2000 and correctly adjust for leap years.
Additional information addressing the Y2K issue may be found at the General Services Administration's Office of Information Technology website at http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov.
The Bureau will acknowledge receipt of all proposals and will review them for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the U.S. Department of State Office of East European Assistance, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be forwarded to panels of Bureau officers for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Bureau elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Final technical authority for assistance awards (grants or cooperative agreements) resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer.
Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation:
Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries* * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations* * *and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act.
The terms and conditions published in this RFP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements.
Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal Department of State procedures.
The U.S. Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Working Group on Fire Protection will conduct an open meeting on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, at 9:30 AM, in room 6103 at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the outcome of the Forty-fourth Session of the International Maritime Organization's Subcommittee on Fire Protection, held February 21-25, 2000. In addition, preparations for the next session will also be discussed at the meeting.
The meeting will focus on proposed amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention for the fire safety of commercial vessels. Specific discussion areas include: comprehensive review of SOLAS Chapter II-2, unified interpretations to SOLAS II-2 and related fire test procedures, recommendations on evacuation analysis for passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft, fire test procedures for fire retardant materials used in the construction of lifeboats, and use of perfluorocarbons in shipboard fire-extinguishing systems.
Although the meeting will focus primarily on the outcome of the previous session, preparations and plans for the next session will also be discussed. This offers the opportunity for members of the public to be involved early in the standards development process. Members of the public wishing to make a statement on new issues or proposals at the meeting are requested to submit a brief summary to the U. S. Coast Guard five days prior to the meeting.
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may obtain more information regarding the meeting of the SOLAS Working Group on Fire Protection by writing: Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Commandant (G-MSE-4), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second St., SW, Washington, DC 20593, by calling: LCDR Kevin Kiefer at (202) 267-1444, or by visiting the following World Wide Website: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mse4/stdimofp.htm.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
This notice lists products that the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) will be reviewing for possible duty-free importation from certain sub-Saharan African countries as provided under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which Congress recently enacted. The notice provides the dates and places the TPSC will hold public hearings on this subject, explains how to make written comments on products included in the
GSP Subcommittee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW, Room 518, Washington, DC 20508. Telephone: (202) 395-6971.
Congress established the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program in Title V of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Trade Act”) (19 U.S.C. 2461
On May 18, 2000, the President signed into law the Trade and Development Act of 2000, which includes the AGOA. The AGOA amends the GSP program, authorizing the President to provide GSP (duty-free) treatment for selected products from designated sub-Saharan African countries if, after receiving advice from the U.S. International Trade Commission, he determines that the products are not import-sensitive in the context of imports from these countries. The AGOA names those countries whose products the President may designate for duty-free importation.
This notice lists by Harmonized Tariff System numbers those products not currently receiving GSP treatment that the Congress determined are eligible for designation under the AGOA for such treatment when imported from sub-Saharan African countries. The TPSC's GSP Subcommittee will review this list, after holding hearings and receiving written comments from the public and advice from the International Trade Commission, to decide which of the products the TPSC will recommend to the President for GSP treatment if imported from countries designated as AGOA beneficiaries.
Listing the products proposed for GSP eligibility does not indicate any opinion about the merits of granting eligibility for these products. Placement on the list indicates only that the products have been found eligible for review by the GSP Subcommittee and the TPSC, and that such review will take place.
The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC invites submissions supporting or opposing the granting of GSP eligibility for any article on the attached list. All such submissions should include an original and thirteen (13) copies in English and conform to 15 CFR 2007, particularly 2007.0, 2007.1(a)(1), 2007.1(a)(2), and 2007.1(a)(3). All submissions should identify the subject article(s) in terms of the current HTS nomenclature and should be provided by 5 p.m., July 5, 2000.
All communications about public comments should be addressed to: Chairman of the GSP Subcommittee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW, Room 518, Washington, DC 20508. Telephone number: (202) 395-6971. Questions may be directed to any staff member of the GSP Information Center. Public versions of all documents relating to this review will be available for inspection by appointment in the USTR public reading room. Appointments may be made from 10 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. by calling (202) 395-6186.
Submissions that are granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2203.6, and other qualifying information submitted in confidence pursuant to 15 CFR 2007.7, will not be available for public inspection. If a document contains such business confidential information, an original and thirteen (13) copies of the business confidential versions of the document along with an original and thirteen (13) copies of the non-confidential version must be submitted. The document that contains business confidential information should be clearly marked “business confidential” at the top and bottom of each page. The version that does not contain business confidential information (the public version) should also be clearly marked at the top and bottom of every page (either “public version” or “nonconfidential”).
The GSP Subcommittee will hold hearings on September 7, 2000 and, if needed, on September 8, 2000 beginning at 10 a.m. in the Truman Room of the White House Conference Center, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC. The hearings will be open to the public, and a transcript of the hearings will be available for public inspection or it can be purchased from the reporting company. No electronic media coverage will be allowed.
All interested parties wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearings must submit the name, address, telephone number, and fax number of the witness or witnesses representing their organization to the Chairman of the GSP Subcommittee by 5 p.m. August 9, 2000 as well as an original and thirteen (13) copies (in English) or all written briefs or statements. Oral testimony before the GSP Subcommittee will be limited to five minute presentations that summarize or supplement information contained in the briefs or statements submitted for the record.
If, by the close of business on August 9, 2000 no witnesses are scheduled to appear at the hearing, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or non-participant may call the GSP Information Office (202) 395-6971 after August 9, 2000 to determine whether a hearing will be held.
Post-hearing and rebuttal written briefs or statements will be accepted if they conform with the regulations cited above and if an original and thirteen (13) copies in English are submitted no later than 5 p.m. September 27, 2000. Parties not wishing to appear at the public hearings may submit pre-hearing written briefs or statements by August 9, 2000, and may submit post-hearing and rebuttal written briefs or statements by September 27, 2000. Comments by interested persons on the USITC Report prepared as part of this product review should be submitted as an original and thirteen (13) copies, in English, by 5 p.m. October 20, 2000.
On behalf of the President and in accordance with section 111 of AGOA (Section 506A of the Trade Act), on May 22, 2000 the list of products proposed for duty-free treatment eligibility under the GSP was furnished to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to secure its advice on (1) the probable economic effect of the elimination of U.S. import duties under GSP on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive products, and on consumers; and (2) to the extent possible, the level of U.S. sensitivity to imports of such Sub-Saharan products.
The AGOA authorizes the President to provide GSP (duty-free) treatment for selected products from designated sub-Saharan African countries if, after receiving advice from the U.S. International Trade Commission, he determines that the products are not import-sensitive in the context of imports from these countries. The list of products designated as eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP as a result
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 159 meeting to be held June 12-16, 2000, starting at 9:00 a.m. each day. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
The agenda will be as follows:
Specific Working Group Sessions: June 12: Working Group 1, Third Civil Frequency. June 13: Working Group 6, GPS/Interference; Working Group 2C, GPS/Inertial. June 14: 9 a.m.-12 p.m., Working Group 4, Precision Landing Guidance (GPS/LAAS); Working Group 6, Interference; 1:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., SC-159 Ad Hoc, Recommendation Support. June 15: Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS; Working Group 4, Precision Landing Guidance (LAAS).
June 16: Plenary Session: (1) Chairman's Introductory Remarks; (2) Approve Summary of Previous Meeting; (3) Review Working Group (WG) Progress and Identify Issues for Resolution: (a) GPS/3rd Civil Frequency (WG-1); (b) GPS/WAAS (WG-2); (c) GPS/GLONASS (WG-2A); (d) GPS/Inertial (WG-2C); (e) GPS/Precision Landing Guidance (WG-4); (f) GPS/Airport Surface Surveillance (WG-5); (g) GPS Interference (WG-6); (h) SC-159 Ad Hoc; (4) Review of EUROCAE Activities; (5) Review/Approve Final Draft, NAVSTAR GPS L5 Civil Signal Specification; (6) Review/Approve Final Draft, SC-159 Response to the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Recommendation Regarding Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring; (7) Assignment/Review of Future Work; (8) Other Business; (9) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (10) Closing.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting.
Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, at (202) 833-9339 (phone), (202) 833-9434 (fax). Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by City of Austin for Austin-Bergstrom International Airport under the provisions of Title 49 USC, Chapter 475 (hereinafter referred to as “Title 49” and 14 CFR Part 150 are in compliance with applicable requirements. The FAA also announces that it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for Austin-Bergstrom International Airport under Part 150 in conjunction with the noise exposure maps and that this program will be approved or disapproved on or before November 8, 2000.
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps and the start of its review of the associated noise compatibility program are May 9, 2000. The public comment period ends July 8, 2000.
Nan L. Terry, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, Texas, 76193-0652, (817) 222-5607. Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program should also be submitted to the above office.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure map submitted for Austin-Bergstrom International Airport is in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective May 8, 2000. Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for that airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before November 8, 2000. This notice also announces the availability of this program for public review and comment.
Under Title 49, an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict noncompatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. Title 49 requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport.
An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by the FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title 49, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes for the reduction of existing noncompatible uses and for the prevention of the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.
On April 20, 1999, FAA published its approval of noise exposure maps for the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in the
In addition to the 2004 future condition noise exposure map, the City of Austin submitted to the FAA on April 10, 2000, descriptions and other documentation which were produced during Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Austin, Texas, Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. It was requested that the FAA review this material as the noise exposure map, as described in Title 49, and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointed by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program under Title 49.
The FAA has determined that this map for Austin-Bergstrom International Airport is in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on May 8, 2000. FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure map(s) is limited to a finding that the map(s) was developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information, or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.
If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of Title 49. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator which submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under Title 49. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under § 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
The FAA has formally received noise compatibility program for Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, also effective on May 8, 2000. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before November 8, 2000.
The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 150, section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise exposure map, the FAA's evaluation of the map, and the proposed noise compatibility program are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Fayetteville Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
Comments must be received on or before June 26, 2000.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337-2747.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Bradley S. Whited, Airport Director, of the City of Fayetteville at the following address: Mr. Bradley S. Whited, Airport Director, Fayetteville Regional Airport, P.O. Box 64218, Fayetteville, NC 28306.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the City of Fayetteville under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Lee Kyker, Manager of Airport Programs, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-7161. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Fayetteville Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
On May 12, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the City of Fayetteville was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than September 8, 2000.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Brief description of proposed project(s):
Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: None
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Federal Aviation Administration.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability;—discretionary cooperative agreements to assist in the development and use of Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Systems.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announces a discretionary cooperative agreement program to assist states in the development and use of Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Systems (CODES) and solicits applications for projects under this program from states that have not previously been funded to develop CODES. Under this program states will link their existing statewide traffic records with medical outcome and charge data. The linked data will be used to support highway safety decision-making at the local, regional, and state levels to reduce deaths, non-fatal injuries, and health care costs resulting from motor vehicle crashes.
Applications must be received at the office designated below on or before July 24, 2000.
Applications must be submitted to DOT/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Contracts and Procurement (NAD-30), ATTN: Lamont O. Norwood/Mr. Mark Kromer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 5301, Washington, DC 20590. All applications submitted must include a reference to NHTSA Cooperative Agreement Program No. DTNH22-00-H-07212. Interested applicants should contact Mr. Norwood to obtain the application packet. Included in the application packet are reports about data linkage and applications for linked data developed by the CODES project.
General administrative questions may be directed to Lamont O. Norwood, Office of Contracts and Procurement. All questions and requests for copies may be directed by e-mail at
Crash data alone are unable to convey the magnitude of the medical and financial consequences of the injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes or the success of highway safety decision-making to prevent them. Outcome information describing what happens to all persons involved in motor vehicle crashes, regardless of injury, is needed.
Person-specific outcome information is collected at the crash scene and en route by EMS personnel, at the emergency department, in the hospital, and after discharge. When these data are computerized and merged statewide, they generate a source of population-based data that is available for use by state and local traffic safety and public health professionals. Linking these records to statewide crash data collected by police at the scene is the key to developing relationships among specific vehicles, crash, and occupant behavior characteristics and their medical and financial outcomes.
The feasibility of linking crash and medical outcome (EMS, emergency department, hospital discharge, death certificate, claims, etc.) data was demonstrated by the CODES project. This project evolved from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which mandated that NHTSA prepare a Report to Congress about the benefits of safety belt and motorcycle helmet use. NHTSA provided funding to the States of Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin to link their state data and use the linked data to analyze the effectiveness of safety belts and motorcycle helmets. The Report was delivered to Congress in February 1996. In 1996, three CODES states (New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and three states which linked crash and medical data without CODES funding (Alaska, Connecticut, and New Mexico) were awarded NHTSA research funds to develop state-specific applications for linked data. In 1997, NHTSA awarded grants for CODES linkage to Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maryland, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Nevada. Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and South Carolina which were funded to implement the CODES linkage in 1998. Arizona, Delaware, Minnesota and Tennessee were funded in 1999.
The CODES project also demonstrated that linked data have many uses for decision-making related to highway safety and injury control. In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness of safety belts and motorcycle helmets in preventing death, injury, and costs, the linked data were used to identify populations at risk for increased severity or high health care costs, the impact of different occupant behaviors on outcome, the safety needs at the community level, the allocation of resources for emergency medical services, the injury patterns by type of roadway and geographic location, and the benefits of collaboration on data quality. When crash, vehicle, and behavior characteristics were linked to outcome information, decision-makers could identify those prevention programs that had the most impact on preventing or reducing the medical and financial costs associated with motor vehicle crashes.
Data linkage fulfills expanded data needs without the additional expense and delay of new data collection. The linkage process itself provides feedback about data quality and content problems which leads to improvement in the state data. Thus, it is in NHTSA's interest to encourage states to qualify for CODES funding. NHTSA benefits from the improved quality of the state data, while the states benefit from state-specific
The objective of this Cooperative Agreement program is to provide resources to the applicant to:
1. Coordinate the development and institutionalization of the capability to link state crash and medical outcome data to identify the medical and financial consequences of motor vehicle crashes.
2. Utilize this information in crash analysis, problem identification, and program evaluation to improve decision-making at the local, state, and national levels related to preventing or reducing deaths, injuries, and direct medical costs associated with motor vehicle crashes.
3. Provide NHTSA with population-based linked crash and injury data to analyze specific highway safety issues of interest to NHTSA in collaboration with the CODES states.
4. Develop data linkage capabilities as a means of improving the quality of state data that support NHTSA's national data.
This cooperative agreement is not intended to fund basic development of data systems, but rather to create linkages among existing records. However, it is hoped that this project will inspire States to develop and improve their state data and to expedite these activities in order to become eligible for CODES funding.
1. Link statewide population-based crash to injury data for any two calendar years available since 1996, to produce a linked data file that, if not statewide, reflects a contiguous geographical area that contains at least three (3) million residents in which the residents obtain all levels of emergency medical care without the need to be transferred elsewhere, except in rare occurrences, when involved in motor vehicle crashes. The linked data must be representative and generalizable for highway traffic safety purposes in the state/area. All applicants must be able to clearly document what data are available and what data are missing and the significance of the missing data for highway traffic safety planning efforts.
a. Develop a state/area-wide CODES that includes outcome information for all persons, injured and uninjured, involved in police reported motor vehicle crashes.
(1) The CODES should consist of crash data linked to hospital and either EMS or emergency department data, preferably both. States without EMS or emergency department data are eligible if this type of outpatient information can be obtained from insurance claims data for everyone involved in a crash who is treated at an outpatient center.
(2) Additional state/area-wide data (driver licensing, vehicle registration, citation/conviction records, insurance claims, HMO/managed care/etc., outpatient records, etc.) should be linked as necessary to meet state/area wide objectives.
b. Set up processes for collaboration among the technical experts who manage the data files being linked.
c. Assign an agency to be responsible for:
(1) Obtaining a computer and linkage software to be dedicated to CODES activities (the computer and software resources may not be permanently tied to an existing computer network in such a way as to preclude their movement in the future, as directed by the CODES Board of Directors, to another organization more interested in continuing the linkage and application for the linked data);
(2) Implementing probabilistic linkage methodology to facilitate tracking the crash victim from the scene to final disposition/recovery using existing computerized state/area-wide population-based databases;
(3) Validating the linkage results by evaluating the rate of false positives and false negatives among the linked and unlinked records;
(4) Analyzing the linked data; and,
(5) Cross-training sufficient staff to ensure continuation of the linkage capability in spite of changes in organizational priorities or personnel during or after the project period.
d. Document the file preparation, linkage and validation processes so that the linkage can be repeated efficiently during subsequent years after Federal funding ends and provide evidence of this documentation.
e. Provide NHTSA a version of the linked data file with supporting documentation that conforms to State laws and regulations governing patient/provider confidentiality, yet satisfies minimum NHTSA data needs.
2. Use the linked data to influence highway traffic safety and injury control decision-making by implementing at least one application of linked data that is expected to have a positive impact on reducing death, injury, and direct medical costs.
3. Use the linked data to prepare management reports using a format standardized by NHTSA for a national CODES report.
4. Develop the computer programs needed to translate the linked data into information useful for highway traffic safety and injury control at the local, regional, or state/area-wide level.
a. Develop, for access within the State, a public-use version of the linked data, copies of which will be distributed upon request.
b. Develop the resources necessary to produce and distribute routine reports, respond to data requests, and provide access to the linked data for analytical, management, planning, and other purposes after Federal funding ends.
c. Use the Internet and other electronic mechanisms to efficiently distribute and share information generated from the linked data.
5. Promote collaboration between the owners and users of the state/area-wide data to facilitate data linkage and applications for linked data.
a. Establish a state/area-wide CODES collaborative network.
(1) Convene a Board of Directors consisting of the data owners and major users of the state/area-wide data. The CODES Board of Directors will be responsible for managing and institutionalizing the linked data, establishing the data release policies for the linked data, supporting the activities of the grantee, ensuring that data linkage and application activities are appropriately coordinated within the state/area, and resolving common issues related to data accessibility, availability, completeness, quality, confidentiality, transfer, ownership, fee for service, management etc. The CODES Board of Directors shall meet bi-monthly.
(2) Convene a CODES Advisory Group consisting of the CODES Board of Directors and other stakeholders interested in the use of linked data to support highway safety, injury control, EMS, etc. The CODES Advisory Group will be informed of the results of the data linkage, application of the data for decision-making, the quality of the state/area-wide data for linkage and the quality of the linked data for analysis. The CODES Advisory Group shall meet twice a year.
b. Promote coordination of the various stakeholders through use of the Internet, teleconferencing, joint meetings, and other mechanisms to ensure frequent communication among all parties to minimize the expense of travel.
6. Work collaboratively with NHTSA to implement the Cooperative Agreement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f. Develop a plan to institutionalize the data linkage and applications for linked data after Federal funding ends. By the end of the 15th month of funding, each grantee shall submit a long-range plan and schedule to institutionalize data linkage and the use of linked data for highway safety and injury control decision-making within the state.
g.
NHTSA will be involved in all activities undertaken as part of the Cooperative Agreement program and will:
1. Provide a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) to participate in the planning and management of the Cooperative Agreement and coordinate activities between the grantee and NHTSA.
2. Provide, at no cost to the grantee, training and technical assistance by a CODES expert for up to two weeks on-site and off-site during the project to assist the grantee in preparing the files for linkage, implementing probabilistic linkage techniques, validating the linkage results, developing applications for the linked data, and organizing the CODES Board of Directors and Advisory Group.
3. Develop a format in which the linked data and supporting documentation will be delivered to NHTSA.
4. Conduct Initial Briefing at NHTSA Headquarters in Washington, DC. (Date and time to be scheduled within 30 days after the award.) The purpose of the meeting will be to review the goals and objectives of the project, discuss implementation of the linkage software, identify the tasks to be specified in the action plan for the data linkage and applications of the linked data for highway safety or injury control decision-making, and discuss agendas for the Board of Directors and Advisory Group.
5. Conduct two Technical Assistance meetings for the purpose of technology transfer. The first meeting, to be scheduled during the ninth or tenth month of funding, will be organized to share data linkage experiences, develop a standardized format for management reports, review the proposed state-specific highway traffic safety applications of linked data, and resolve common problems. The second meeting will be scheduled at the end of the funding period for the purpose of sharing results and making recommendations for future CODES projects. Locations for the Workshops will be determined based on the location of the Grantees. However, for the purpose of cost estimation, assume the workshops will be held in Washington, DC.
6. Collaboratively work with the state when using the state's linked data to analyze and report on specific highway safety issues.
7. When appropriate, NHTSA will publish state-specific reports on CODES applications.
The project study effort described in this announcement will be supported through the award of up to four (4) Cooperative Agreements, depending upon the merit of the applications received and the availability of funding. It is anticipated that individual award amounts will range from $250,000-$300,000. Project efforts involving linkage of the state/area-wide data and applications for the linked data must be completed within twenty-one months after funding.
The grantee must be a state agency involved with highway traffic safety, such as a State Highway Safety Office, Department of Transportation or other State agency with demonstrated activities in the highway traffic safety areas, to ensure active involvement by highway traffic safety stakeholders. States that have previously been funded to develop CODES are not eligible. Only one application should be submitted for a state/area. Because this Cooperative Agreement program requires extensive collaboration among the data owners in order to achieve the program objectives, it is envisioned that the grantee agency may need to actively involve the data owners in the development of the formal application and may need to sub-contract activities with at least one of them to implement a successful CODES.
While the general eligibility requirements are broad, applicants are advised that this Cooperative Agreement program is not designed to support basic developmental efforts. Although no single organization within any state/area has all of the required data capabilities, the application should demonstrate strong collaborative agreements with the data owners and access to at least the state/area-wide crash, hospital, and either EMS or emergency department data, or both, by the time of the award. States/areas that collect at least the date of birth and zip code of residence on their crash data and have state/area-wide health and/or vehicle insurance claims information may be eligible, in
Each applicant must submit one original and two (2) copies of the application package to: DOT/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Contracts and Procurement (NAD-30), ATTN: Lamont O. Norwood/Mark Kromer, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 5301, Washington, DC 20590. Applications must be typed on one side of the page only. An additional two (2) copies will facilitate the review process, but are not required. Applications must include a reference to NHTSA Cooperative Agreement Program No. DTNH22-00-H-07212. Only complete application packages received on or before 2 p.m. on July 24, 2000 will be considered.
1. The application package must be submitted with OMB Standard Form 424 (REV. 7-97, including 424A and 424B), Application for Federal Assistance, with the required information filled in and assurances signed (SF 424B). While the Form 424A deals with budget information and Section B identifies Budget Categories, the available space does not permit a level of detail which is sufficient to provide for a meaningful evaluation of the proposed total costs. A supplemental sheet shall be provided which presents a detailed breakdown of the proposed costs (direct labor, including labor category, level of effort, and rate; direct materials including itemized equipment; travel and transportation, including projected trips and number of people traveling; subcontractors/subgrants, with similar detail, if known; and overhead), as well as any costs the applicant proposes to contribute or obtain from other sources in support of the project. Applicants shall assume that awards will be made during September 2000 and should prepare their applications accordingly.
2. The application shall include a program narrative statement of not more than 20 pages, which addresses the following as a minimum:
a. A brief description of the state/area in terms of its highway safety and injury control decision-making processes for planning, performance monitoring and other functions aimed at reducing death, injury, and costs of injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This description should indicate how linked data will make a difference to the decision-making processes.
b. A brief description of the existing crash and medical outcome data files. Applicants will link state/area-wide population-based crash data to EMS (and/or emergency department or insurance claims) and hospital discharge data to obtain medical and financial outcomes for persons injured in motor vehicle crashes for any two calendar years of data available since 1996. Linkages to census, other traffic records (vehicle registration, driver licensing, roadway, conviction/citation,
(1) The total crashes, total persons involved in crashes, total victims with injuries caused by a motor vehicle crash as identified or estimated and a descriptive profile of the total injuries by severity level, if available, state/area-wide.
(2) Information about the current status of the data files to be linked, recorded using the format below:
(3) The data elements chosen to identify persons and crashes and, for each, the missing data rate.
(4) The data elements indicating type of injury, severity of injury, total charges, a payer source and, for each, the missing data rate.
c. A brief description of the proposed sequence for linking the data files.
d. A brief description of how staff from the various data owners will be cross-trained in the CODES linkage to compensate for potential future changes in organizational priorities and personnel.
e. A brief description of the process to be used to ensure adequate documentation of the data files and linkage process.
f. A brief description of how the linked data will be converted into information useful for the highway safety and injury control decision-making processes for the purpose of reducing death, injury, and costs resulting from motor vehicle crashes.
(1) The different types of decision-making processes, currently being utilized in the state/area, that identify highway traffic safety and injury control objectives and prioritize prevention programs that have the most impact on reducing death, injury and direct medical costs associated with motor vehicle crashes; and
(2) Why linked data are needed to make these decision-making processes more effective and how the data will be incorporated.
g. A brief description of each member of the CODES Board of Directors and the proposed arrangements describing the management and use of the linked data.
3. The application shall include an appendix. A large appendix is strongly discouraged. Additional material should be included only if it is necessary to support information about data linkage, applications for linked data or institutionalization discussed in the application. Do not send copies of brochures, documents, etc., developed as the result of a collaborative effort in the state/area. The appendix should include the following:
a. Letters of support from each proposed member of the CODES Board of Directors. A letter of support should reflect the signer's level of commitment to the CODES project and thus should not be a form letter. The letter of support should document:
(1) Why linked data are important to the agency.
(2) The priority assigned by the agency to obtain linked data compared to other responsibilities.
(3) The agency's level of commitment in terms of the number of staff and the dollars or shared resources which will be available to support and institutionalize CODES.
(4) The agency's willingness to collaborate with other data owners to support shared ownership of the linked data.
(5) The agency's permission to release the linked data (or description of policies which would restrict transfer) to NHTSA at the end of the project.
b. A brief description or letters of support should be included for the other stakeholders to be represented on the CODES Advisory Group. The letters of support should indicate the stakeholder's need for the linked data, and willingness to facilitate the linkage of state/area-wide data or use of linked data for decision-making.
c. A list of activities in chronological order and a time line to show the expected schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
d. Descriptions of the proposed project personnel as follows:
(1) Project Director: Include a resume along with a description of the director's leadership capabilities to make the various stakeholders work together.
(2) Key personnel proposed for the data linkage and applications of linked data, and other personnel considered critical to the successful accomplishment of this project: include a brief description of qualifications, employment status (permanent, temporary) in the organization, and respective organizational responsibilities. The proposed level of effort in performing the various activities should also be identified.
e. A brief description of the applicant's organizational experience in performing similar or related efforts, and the priority that will be assigned to this project compared to the organization's other responsibilities.
f. A brief description of any potential delays in implementing the project because of requirements for legislative approval before CODES funds can be expended.
g.
Initially, all application packages will be reviewed to confirm that the applicant is an eligible recipient and to ensure that the application contains all of the items specified in the Application Content section of this announcement. Each complete application from an eligible recipient will then be evaluated by an Evaluation committee. The applications will be evaluated using the following criteria which are listed in descending order of importance:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Depending upon the results of the evaluation process, NHTSA may choose to alter the number of awards. In addition, NHTSA may suggest revisions to applications as a condition of further consideration to ensure the most efficient and effective performance consistent with the objectives of the project. An organizational representative of the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives will be assisting in NHTSA's technical evaluation process.
After evaluating all applications received, in the event that insufficient funds are available to award to all meritorious applicants, NHTSA may consider the following special award factors in the award decision:
1. Priority may be given to those applicants that have statewide data available for linkage.
2. Priority may be given to applicants who have the highest probability of maintaining the collaborative network of data owners and users, of institutionalizing the linkage of the crash and medical outcome data on a routine basis, and of continuing to respond to data requests after the project is completed.
3. Priority may be given to an applicant on the basis that the application fits a profile of providing NHTSA with a broad range of population densities (rural through metropolitan) with different highway safety needs.
1. Prior to award, each grantee must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR part 20, Department of Transportation New Restrictions on Lobbying, and 49 CFR part 29, Department of Transportation Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Grants). In addition, grantees must certify that data release agreements have been signed by the owners of the data files being linked to transfer the CODES linked database to NHTSA, according to NHTSA specifications.
2. Reporting Requirements and Deliverables:
a.
(1) The personnel and hardware resources required to perform the data linkage.
(2) The process for obtaining the different files required for linkage.
(3) The process for accelerating the data processing schedule, if necessary, so that the state/area-wide data are available in a timely manner for the linkage.
(4) The process for verifying the data and performing additional edits on the linkage variables.
(5) The process for resolving problems expected during linkage and their proposed solutions.
(6) The process for documenting the content of the various linked data files, programs used for editing, and the linkage process itself.
(7) The milestones for completing the various phases of the probabilistic linkage and validation processes.
(8) The milestones for proposed meeting schedules and actions by the Board of Directors and Advisory Group.
(9) Date(s) for providing the linked data to NHTSA.
(10) The process for identifying the limitations of the final linked database or applications of the linked data, if any.
(11) The process for ensuring access to the linked data as demand for information increases.
(12) The process for choosing those applications of linked data that will have the most impact on reducing death, injury, and costs of injuries related to motor vehicle crashes.
(13) The milestones for implementing the applications.
(14) The benefits expected from the applications of the linked data.
b.
c.
d.
e.
(1) A description of the state/area wide linked crash and injury data;
(2) A description of the file preparation;
(3) A description of the linkage, validation processes and results;
(4) A description of the extent of the documentation and how the documentation will facilitate linkage in subsequent years;
(5) A discussion of the limitations of the linked data and subsequent applications of these data;
(6) A description of the applications of linked data implemented for decision-making and results of the decision-making;
(7) A description of how the data linkage and use of linked data for decision making has been institutionalized for decision-making;
(8) A description of the documentation created to facilitate repeating of the linkage process and an estimate of how much time is needed to repeat the linkage in subsequent years;
(9) A copy of the public-use formats that were successful for incorporating linked data into the decision-making processes for highway safety and injury control; and
(10) A copy of the management reports prepared using the standardized format for the national CODES report.
f.
The deliverables will include:
(1) The database in an electronic media and format acceptable to NHTSA, including all persons, regardless of injury severity (none, fatal, non-fatal), involved in a reported motor vehicle crash for any two calendar years of available data since 1996, and including medical and financial outcome information for those who are linked.
(2) A copy of the file structure for the linked data file.
(3) Documentation of the definitions and file structure for each of the data elements contained in the linked data files.
(4) An analysis of the quality of the linked data and a description of any data bias which may exist based on an analysis of the false positive and false negative linked records.
3. During the effective performance period of Cooperative Agreements awarded as a result of this announcement, the agreement as applicable to the grantee shall be subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's General Provisions for Assistance Agreements, dated July 1995.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Announcement of discretionary grants to support innovative projects designed to increase seat belt use rates.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announces the second year of a discretionary grant program under Section 1403 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to provide funding to States for innovative projects to increase seat belt use rates. Consistent with last year, the goal of this program is to increase seat belt use rates across the nation in order to reduce the deaths, injuries, and societal costs that result from motor vehicle crashes. This notice solicits applications from the States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, through their Governors' Representatives for Highway Safety, for funds to be made available in FY 2001. Detailed application instructions are provided in the Application Contents section of this Notice. The Section 157 Innovative grants will be awarded competitively based upon the evaluation results of the applications received. Detailed information on the evaluation criteria is provided in the Application Review Procedures and Evaluation Criteria section of this Notice.
Applications must be received by the office designated below on or before July 26, 2000.
Applications must be submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Contracts and Procurement (NAD-30), ATTN: Amy Poling, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5301, Washington, DC 20590. All applications submitted must include a reference to NHTSA Grant Program No. DTNH22-00-G-09200
General administrative questions may be directed to Amy Poling, Office of Contracts and Procurement by e-mail at apoling@nhtsa.dot.gov. or by phone at (202) 366-9552. Programmatic questions relating to this grant program should be directed to Philip Gulak, Occupant Protection Division (NTS-12), NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590, by e-mail at pgulak@nhtsa.dot.gov, or by phone at (202) 366-2708. Interested applicants are advised that no separate application package exists beyond the contents of this announcement.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Pub.L. 105-178, was enacted on June 9, 1998. Section 1403 of TEA-21 contained a safety incentive grant program for use of seat belts. Under this program, funds are allocated each fiscal year from 1999 until 2003 to States that exceed the national average seat belt use rate or that improve their State seat belt use rate, based on certain required determinations and findings. Section 1403 provided that, beginning in fiscal year 2000, any funds remaining unallocated in a fiscal year after the determinations and findings related to seat belt use rates have been made are to be used to “make allocations to States to carry out innovative projects to promote increased seat belt use rates.” Today's notice solicits applications for funds that will become available in fiscal year 2001 under this latter provision.
TEA-21 imposes several requirements under the innovative projects funding provision. Specifically, in order to be eligible to receive an allocation, a State must develop a plan for innovative projects to promote increased seat belt use rates and submit the plan to the Secretary of Transportation (by delegation, to NHTSA). NHTSA was directed to establish criteria governing the selection of State plans that are to receive allocations and was further directed to “ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, demographic and geographic diversity and a diversity of seat belt use rates among the States selected for allocations.” Finally, subject to the availability of funds, TEA-21 provides that the amount of each grant under a State plan is to be not less than $100,000.
In the following sections, the agency describes the application and award procedures for receipt of funds under this provision, including requirements related to the contents of a State's plan for innovative projects and the criteria the agency will use to evaluate State plans and make selections for award. To assist the States in formulating plans that meet these criteria, we have provided an extensive discussion of strategies for increasing seat belt use and of the ways in which States might demonstrate innovation. Please refer to the Appendix at the end of this Notice for additional background information about strategies that have been used in the past to increase belt use.
The objective of this grant program is to increase State seat belt use rates, for both adults and children, by supporting the implementation of innovative projects that build upon strategies known to be effective in increasing seat belt use rates. Because one of the best ways to ensure that children develop a habit of buckling up is for parents to properly restrain them in child safety seats, efforts to increase the use of child safety seats, in addition to seat belts, may be included among the innovative efforts in a State's plan. However, efforts to increase seat belt use rates must remain the focus of the State's plan.
Recent seat belt use increases in California, North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia (see discussion in next section), as well as increases following national mobilizations, have demonstrated the tremendous potential of highly visible enforcement of strong laws to increase seat belt and child seat use. Given the dramatic results of these programs, NHTSA believes that highly visible enforcement is an important foundation upon which any effective program should be based. An extensive review of the efforts in both the United States and Canada demonstrates that, without a core of highly visible enforcement efforts, high usage rates have not been achieved in any major jurisdiction.
In view of these findings, to be considered for award of funds under this program, the State's innovative project plan should be based on a core component of highly visible enforcement of its seat belt use law with the clear intent of increasing the State's seat belt use rate. A proposal to increase seat belt use in only a limited number of jurisdictions, that would have a questionable impact on the overall state seat belt use rate, may be rejected during the evaluation process. Other components of the plan should support the core enforcement component. If a State is already pursuing a significant and visible enforcement effort, the innovative project plan should detail components that support, expand, or complement the existing enforcement effort. States submitting an innovative project plan with a core component (and supporting components) based on an approach other than enforcement should provide a strong rationale for the proposed approach, preferably accompanied by research evidence, demonstrating the significant potential for increasing the State's seat belt use rate. NHTSA will carefully consider this rationale in its evaluation of the proposal.
A State may demonstrate innovation in its enforcement efforts in a number of ways. If a State is not currently engaged in any form of highly visible enforcement of its occupant protection laws, implementation of such a program, in and of itself, would be innovative to that State. Additionally, innovation may be demonstrated in gaining essential support, implementing statewide training programs, and planning the logistics for wide scale enforcement supported by public information activities. For States that already are engaged in substantial enforcement efforts, innovation can be demonstrated by expanding these efforts. This might include finding more effective ways to reach rural, urban, or diverse groups with strategies designed to address the problem of low seat belt use among those groups. States that have upgraded their laws recently to allow for primary enforcement may wish to initiate innovative ways to implement, enforce, and publicize their newly enacted legislation. For States with secondary enforcement laws, where a motorist must be stopped for another offense before being cited for failure to buckle up, innovation may be demonstrated by integrating the enforcement of the seat belt law with enforcement of another traffic safety law (
Following are some examples of innovative activities in support of a core component of enforcement:
If a State wishes to submit a plan proposing a core component other than enforcement, it should demonstrate innovation by proposing to perform supporting activities similar in scope to those listed above. The State should demonstrate that the proposed activities have the potential to increase the State's seat belt use rate.
Meaningful and timely self-evaluations of each State's innovative programs, management, and associated resources are very important to improving programs in subsequent years. On an annual basis, grantees and NHTSA need to generate the most useful insights and most valuable lessons possible from the 157 program. Consequently, program evaluation will be a necessary component of each award (see Application Contents, Section C.2.e.).
In support of the activities undertaken by this grant program, NHTSA will:
1. Provide a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) to coordinate activities between the Grantee and NHTSA during grant performance, and to serve as a liaison between NHTSA Headquarters, NHTSA Regional offices and the grantee.
2. Provide information and technical assistance from government sources within available resources and as determined appropriate by the COTR.
The efforts solicited in this announcement will be supported through the award of grants to a number of States, on the basis of the evaluation criteria identified below. The number of grants awarded will depend upon the merits of the applications received, the amount of funds available in fiscal year 2001, and the size of the grants awarded to individual States. The total amount of funds to be made available is not known at this time, as it is dependent upon appropriations by the Congress and the amount of allocations to States based on State seat belt use rates achieved (see discussion in Background section, above). However, the agency estimates that as much as $25-$30 million may become available for this program in fiscal year 2001.
In accordance with TEA-21, the minimum amount of an individual grant award to a State will be $100,000, subject to the availability of funds. However, NHTSA may make individual awards in amounts significantly greater than $100,000, subject to the availability of funds and consistent with the merits of a State's application. In fiscal year 2000, forty-six Innovative grants were awarded. Those grants ranged from $121,500 to $1,557,608. At this time, neither the exact amount of funds available nor the number and proposed costs of meritorious State applications can be determined. There is no assurance that the number of grant awards in FY 2001 will be the same or similar to the number of awards in FY 2000, nor is there any assurance that those States that received awards in FY 2000 will receive awards in FY 2001. In addition, NHTSA may choose to fund an entire plan, or portions of a plan or it may choose to reject a plan, after review based on the evaluation criteria. There is no cost-sharing requirement under this program. The period of support for a grant under this program will be a total of 15 months, with 12 months of plan implementation, and three months for evaluation and preparation of the annual report.
NHTSA estimates that the award of Section 157 Innovative Grants for fiscal year 2001 will occur during January 2001.
Allowable uses of Federal funds shall be governed by the relevant allowable cost section and cost principles referenced in 49 CFR part 18—Department of Transportation Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Funds provided to a State under this grant program shall be used to carry out the activities described in the State's plan for which the grant is awarded.
Only the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, through their Governors' Representatives for Highway Safety, will be considered eligible to receive funding under this grant program.
Each applicant must submit one original and two copies of the application package to: NHTSA, Office of Contracts and Procurement (NAD-30), ATTN: Amy Poling, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5301, Washington, DC 20590. An additional three copies will facilitate the review process, but are not required.
Applications must be typed on one side of the page only. Applications must include a reference to NHTSA Grant Program No. DTNH22-00-G-09200. Only complete application packages submitted by a State's Governor's Representative for Highway Safety on or before July 26, 2000 will be considered.
This year, the required contents of each State's application will be based upon the State's application and award results for FY 2000 under this grant program.
A. If a State received an award based on a one-year proposal and would like to continue the same or similar work, it may submit an updated or modified version of that proposal. The State is encouraged to modify or strengthen its proposal as appropriate to increase its effectiveness in raising its seat belt use rate. An evaluation component must be included. A Continuation Application using the SF 424 must be submitted which confirms that the same effort will be continued, or indicates what changes are proposed, along with the itemized budget for the proposed effort.
B. If a State received an award based on a proposal that requested funding for several years, and the State wishes to continue the same effort, the State need only re-submit the part of its proposal (or a modified version of such), that relates to FY 2001. The State is encouraged to modify or strengthen its proposal to increase its effectiveness in raising its seat belt use rate. An evaluation component must be included. If there are any changes, additions, or deletions to the original scope of work identified and budgeted for the second year, a Continuation Application using the SF 424 must be submitted which provides a narrative explanation of the proposed differences, along with an itemized budget for the proposed effort.
C. If a State is applying for the first time, or if a State applied and did not receive an award in FY 2000, or if the State is proposing a completely new effort, the State must include in its application all of the contents listed below:
l. The application package must be submitted with OMB Standard Form 424, (Rev. 7-97 or 4-88, including 424A and 424B), Application for Federal Assistance, with the required information provided and the certified assurances included. While the Form 424-A deals with budget information, and section B identifies Budget Categories, the available space does not permit a level of detail which is sufficient to provide for a meaningful evaluation of the proposed costs. A supplemental sheet should be provided which presents a detailed breakdown of the proposed total project effort, including evaluation and reporting, (direct labor, including labor category, level of effort, and rate; direct materials, including itemized equipment; travel and transportation, including projected trips and number of people traveling; subcontracts/subgrants, with similar detail, if known; and overhead). and costs the applicant proposes to contribute or obtain from other sources in support of the projects in the innovative project plan.
2. All applications shall include a State plan detailing innovative projects to increase seat belt use rates. The State plan must provide the following information:
a. An Introduction section with a brief general description of the State's population density, any unique population characteristics, a short summary of the status of the seat belt use law in the State, and the pattern of estimated seat belt use rates for the State.
b. A Discussion section that presents the principal goals and objectives of the proposed plan and articulates the potential to increase State seat belt use rates, with supporting rationale. This section should also identify any proposed partnerships, coalitions, or leveraging of resources that will be employed as a means to implement a comprehensive and significant enforcement effort, as well as public information or educational activities. Any known barriers to implementation of the State's plan should be identified, with a discussion of how such barriers will be overcome. Relevant data based on studies of the program should be included or footnoted. Supporting documentation from concerned interests other than the applicant may be included.
Documentation of existing public and/or political support may be included (
c. A Project Description section, with a detailed description of the innovative projects to be undertaken by the State under the plan, including, for each activity:
(1) the key strategies to be employed to achieve a significant seat belt use rate increase (
(2) the innovative features (
(3) a work plan listing milestones in chronological order to show the schedule of expected accomplishments and their target dates. For example, in a work plan based on an enforcement component, the State should provide the following information:
A description of the proposed enforcement waves (if a sTEP-type enforcement activity is included in the State's proposal), detailing
• The approximate dates when each wave will occur
• How long each wave will last (
• The number of law enforcement agencies that are expected to participate in each wave
• The approximate cumulative percentage of the State's population served by the participating
• The kinds of law enforcement activities and strategies that will take place in each wave (
• The number of officers that will participate
• The number of hours, on average, each officer will participate during each wave
• The number of law enforcement contacts, on average, each officer is expected to make per hour during each wave
• The percentage of these contacts, on average, that are expected to result in a citation for a seat belt or child passenger safety violation.
A State that proposes a component other than enforcement should provide a similarly comprehensive work plan containing all relevant milestones.
d. A Personnel section, which identifies the proposed program manager, key personnel and other proposed personnel considered critical to the successful accomplishment of the activities under the State's plan. A brief description of their qualifications and respective responsibilities shall be included. The proposed level of their effort and contributions to the various activities in the plan shall also be identified. Each organization, corporation, or consultant who will work on the innovative project plan shall be identified, along with a short description of the nature of the effort or contribution and relevant experience.
e. An Evaluation section, with a description of how the State will evaluate and measure the outcomes of the activities in its innovative project plan. It is critically important that the innovative programs funded as a result of this announcement be carefully evaluated so that others may learn the relative strengths and weaknesses of the
• Seat belt use rates
• Level of actual ticketing, other enforcement activities and activity to generate support for enforcement
• Public awareness of ticketing and other enforcement efforts
• Public support for seat belt and child passenger safety enforcement.
• Encouraging specific enforcement-related media efforts
For a program based on a component other than enforcement, the State should provide a similar level of detail in measuring progress and assessing outcomes.
f. An Options section, in which the state may choose to propose either optional tasks or activities in addition to the core set of tasks or activities, or optional levels of effort. For either type of option, the State must include a separate budget which clearly delineates the costs associated with each optional task or level of effort. For example, a State may propose a project plan that includes five week-long enforcement waves with the annual project budget, as well as an optional level of effort for an additional sixth enforcement wave and its associated costs. Doing this will allow maximum flexibility in the amount of funding awarded to a State based on funds available.
Initially, all applications will be reviewed to confirm that the applicant is an eligible recipient and to ensure that the application contains all of the information required by the Application Contents section of the notice. Each complete application from an eligible recipient then will be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee. Incomplete applications will be rejected without further review. This evaluation includes a process of reviewing all grant applications; submitting technical, program and budget questions about the proposals to applicants, where necessary; reviewing answers to these questions; and engaging in negotiations where appropriate. This process is expected to extend over the course of several months, and applicants may expect correspondence of this nature throughout this time period. Using this process, the applications will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:
(a) Is the State's plan sound and feasible to effectively achieve the stated goal(s) for increasing the State's seat belt use rate?
(b) Does the plan detail a significant and comprehensive enforcement effort or, if another approach is proposed, is there evidence supporting the effectiveness of the approach?
(c) Are the data collection methodologies and analytical approaches adequately described in the evaluation plan and will the plan effectively measure the outcomes of the proposed activities?
Each application will be reviewed and rated in accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined above. If an application receives a low rating, NHTSA may eliminate it from further consideration for award without discussions with an offeror. For applications that are not eliminated during this initial review, NHTSA may suggest revisions as a condition of further consideration, during the negotiation process described above, to ensure the most efficient and effective performance consistent with the objectives of achieving increased State seat belt use rates. It is anticipated that awards will be made in January 2001.
After evaluating all applications received, in the event that insufficient funds are available to award all requested amounts to all meritorious applicants, NHTSA may consider the following special award factors in the award decision:
1. Every effort will be made to provide grants to a diverse group of States representing a broad range of geographic, demographic, and use rate characteristics. Thus, preference may be given to an applicant that fits the need for such diversity.
2. Preference may be given to an applicant on the basis that its application is effectively integrated and coordinated with other ongoing efforts in the State, resulting in additional opportunity for immediately increasing seat belt use rates. This could include proposed cost-sharing strategies, and/or the use of other federal, State, local and private funding sources to complement those available under this announcement.
1. Prior to award, each grantee must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR part 20, Department of Transportation New Restrictions on Lobbying, and 49 CFR part 29, Department of Transportation Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Grants).
2. Reporting Requirements and Deliverables:
a. Quarterly Progress Reports should include a summary of the previous quarter's enforcement and other activities and accomplishments, significant problems encountered or anticipated, a brief itemization of expenditures made during the quarter, and proposed activities for the upcoming quarter. Any decisions and actions required in the upcoming quarter should be included in the report.
b. Draft Final Report: The grantee shall prepare a Draft Final Report that includes a complete description of the innovative projects conducted, including partners, overall program implementation, evaluation methodology and findings from the program evaluation. In terms of information transfer, it is important to know what worked and what did not work, under what circumstances, and what can be done to avoid potential problems in future projects. The grantee shall submit the Draft Final Report to the COTR 60 days prior to the end of the performance period. The COTR will review the draft report and provide comments to the grantee within 30 days of receipt of the document.
c. Final Report: The grantee shall revise the Draft Final Report to reflect the COTR's comments. The revised final report shall be delivered to the COTR 15 days before the end of the performance period. The grantee shall supply the COTR :
—A camera ready version of the document as printed.
—A copy, on appropriate media (diskette, Syquest disk, etc.), of the document in the original program format that was used for the printing process.
Some documents require several different original program languages (e.g., PageMaker was the program format for the general layout and design and Power point was used for charts and yet another was used for photographs, etc.). Each of these component parts should be available on disk, properly labeled with the program format and the file names. For example, Power point files should be clearly identified by both a descriptive name and file name (e.g., 1994 Fatalities—chart1.ppt).
—A complete version of the assembled document in portable document format (PDF) for placement of the report on the world wide web (WWW). This will be a file usually created with the Adobe Exchange program of the complete assembled document in the PDF format that will actually be placed on the WWW. The document would be completely assembled with all colors, charts, side bars, photographs, and graphics. This can be delivered to NHTSA on a standard 1.44 diskette (for small documents) or on any appropriate archival media (for large documents) such as a CD ROM, TR-1 Mini cartridge, Syquest disk, etc.
—Four additional hard copies of the final document.
3. During the effective performance period of grants awarded as a result of this announcement, the grant shall be subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's General Provisions for Assistance Agreements, dated July 1995.
Seat belts, when properly used, are 45 percent effective in preventing deaths in potentially fatal crashes and 50 percent effective in preventing serious injuries. No other safety device has as much potential for immediately preventing deaths and injuries in motor vehicle crashes. The current level of seat belt use across the nation prevents more than 9,500 deaths and well over 200,000 injuries annually. Through 1997, more than 100,000 deaths and an estimated 2.5 million serious injuries have been prevented by seat belt use.
But, seat belt use rates and the resulting savings could be much greater. As of 1999, the average use rate among States in the U.S. was still well below the goal of 85 percent announced by the President for the year 2000 and at least a dozen States have use rates below 60 percent. On the other hand, use rates of 85-95 percent are a reality in most developed nations with seat belt use laws, and at least six U.S. States and the District of Columbia achieved use rates greater than 80 percent in 1999. A national use rate of 90 percent (the President's goal for 2005), among front seat occupants of all passenger vehicles, would result in the prevention of an additional 5,500 deaths and 130,000 serious injuries annually. This would translate into a $9 billion reduction in societal costs, including $356 million for Medicare and Medicaid.
The history of efforts to increase seat belt use in the U.S. and in Canada suggests that highly visible enforcement of a strong seat belt law must be at the core of any effective program. No State has ever achieved a high seat belt use rate without such a component. Most States that have achieved rates greater than 70 percent have also had laws that allow for primary (standard) enforcement procedures.
Canada currently has a national seat belt use rate well above 90 percent. Nearly every province first attempted to increase seat belt use through voluntary approaches involving public information and education. These efforts were effective in achieving only very modest usage rates (no higher than 30 percent). Even the enactment of primary enforcement seat belt laws, without intense and highly visible enforcement, generally was not sufficient to achieve usage rates greater than 60-65 percent. By 1985, it became clear to Canadian and provincial officials that additional efforts would be needed to achieve levels of 80 percent or greater. These efforts, mounted from 1985 through 1995, centered around highly publicized “waves” of enforcement, a technique that had already been shown to increase seat belt use in Elmira, New York in 1985. When these procedures were implemented in the Canadian provinces, seat belt use generally increased from about 60 percent to well over 80 percent, within a period of 3-5 years.
The U.S. experience has been similar. Prior to 1980, many attempts were made to increase seat belt use through voluntary, persuasive, or educational methods. Most of these efforts were initiated at local, county, or state levels. Nationally, seat belt use remained very low, reaching only about 11 percent. From 1980-1984, efforts to increase seat belt use emphasized networking with various public and private groups to implement public education programs, incentives, and seat belt use policies. While there were some small gains documented in individual organizations, these efforts did not result in any significant increases in seat belt use in any large city or in any State. By the end of 1984, the national usage rate, as measured by a 19-city observational survey, was only about 15 percent.
In 1984, New York enacted the first mandatory seat belt use law and, from 1985 to 1990, at least 37 other States enacted such laws. Most of these laws were secondary enforcement laws that required an officer to observe another traffic violation before stopping and citing a driver for failure to wear a seat belt. During this period of time, the 19-city index of seat belt use increased from about 15 percent to nearly 50 percent. However, as was the case in Canada, the enactment of laws, by itself, was not sufficient to achieve high usage rates.
The Canadian successes using periodic, highly visible “waves” of enforcement, as well as scores of such efforts implemented in local jurisdictions in the U.S., prompted NHTSA to implement Operation Buckle Down (also called the “70 by ‘92” Program) in 1991. This two-year program focused on Special Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEPs) to increase seat belt use. It was followed by a national usage rate increase from about 53 percent in 1990 to 62 percent by the end of 1992 (as measured by a weighted aggregate of State surveys). Neither the level of enforcement nor its public visibility was uniform in every State. Had these “waves” of enforcement been implemented in a more uniform fashion in every State, the impact likely would have been much greater.
In order to demonstrate the potential of periodic, highly visible enforcement in a more controlled environment, the State of North Carolina implemented its Click-It or Ticket program in 1993. In this program,
On the west coast, the State of California had expended much effort over the years to enforce its secondary enforcement law. These efforts were successful in increasing the statewide usage rate to about 70 percent, where it plateaued. In 1993, California became the first State to upgrade its seat belt law from secondary to primary enforcement. As a result, the rate of seat belt usage increased by 13 percentage points (from 70 percent to 83 percent) in the first year after the law was upgraded.
The California success was a major factor in rekindling interest among safety officials in upgrading their secondary enforcement laws as a way to increase seat belt use. In 1995, Louisiana became the second State to upgrade from secondary to primary enforcement. As a result, it experienced an 18 percentage point increase (from 50 percent to 68 percent) over the next two years. Next, Georgia upgraded its law and experienced a 15 percentage point increase (from 53 percent to 68 percent). After mounting a highly visible enforcement effort in 1998 (Operation Strap `N Snap), Georgia's usage increased by another 10 percentage points. Similarly, Maryland upgraded its seat belt law in 1997, immediately mounted a two-month enforcement effort, and experienced a 13 percentage point increase in usage. In 1998, the District of Columbia reported a 24 percentage point gain in usage (from 58% to 82%) after enacting one of the strongest seat belt use laws in the nation and implementing several waves of highly visible enforcement. Following a 1999 three-week enforcement effort in Elmira, New York, belt use increased to 90 percent. Taken together, the experiences of North Carolina, California, Louisiana, Georgia, Maryland, the District of Columbia and most recently Elmira, New York have clearly demonstrated that highly visible enforcement of strong laws has tremendous potential for increasing seat belt use rates.
Visible enforcement of strong laws also appears to be an essential component of any effective program to increase the use of child safety seats. This is important since early use of child safety seats contributes to the later use of seat belts by children and young adults. There is also a strong relationship between child safety seat use. Studies conducted in several States have found that child safety seat use is nearly three times as high when a driver is buckled up as when a driver is not buckled up. Thus, efforts to persuade adults to buckle up may be the single most important way to get young children protected. However, with child safety seats, correct use is a major concern and the training of law enforcement officers, parents, and advocates is needed to minimize incorrect use and to ensure age-appropriate graduation to seat belts among young children who have outgrown safety seats. Clearly, efforts to increase the use of seat belts and child safety seats are interdependent and complementary.
Prior to the 1977 passage of the Child Passenger Safety (CPS) law in Tennessee, very little progress was made to get young children buckled up. Nationally, child safety seat use was less than 15 percent at the time. However, the Tennessee law was followed by the enactment of primary enforcement CPS laws in all States by 1985. This wave of legislation resulted in a major increase in child restraint use. By 1990, usage was estimated to be above 80 percent for infants and about 60 percent for toddlers.
Unfortunately, problems such as child seat misuse, premature graduation to seat belt use that skips the important step of booster seat use, and variation in age coverage continue to exist. Another issue to emerge has been the danger posed by passenger side air bags to unrestrained and improperly restrained children. This has led to NHTSA's publication of a final rule for advanced air bags and a new emphasis on programs to increase the proper use of child safety seats and revitalized law enforcement efforts in this area.
Over the years, all of the States and many public and private sector organizations have been active participants in efforts to increase seat belt use. Public information and education efforts have been the dominant programs funded over the past two decades. Many States have identified major obstacles to enacting primary seat belt laws or implementing highly visible enforcement programs, even though such programs have been shown to result in high usage rates. Most frequently, State (and local) officials have identified a lack of resources for law enforcement as the single greatest barrier to implementing more intense, highly visible enforcement efforts. This lack of resources extends to funding, human resources, and public information support to conduct such campaigns. Over the past five years, many officials have indicated that, if they had the kind of resources provided to States like North Carolina for the Click It or Ticket program, they too would be able to mount similar programs and achieve similar results. The significant amount of funding that has become available under this grant program, combined with the additional new resources available under other TEA-21 programs, should drastically reduce this obstacle.
The second most frequently mentioned obstacle to mounting highly visible enforcement programs is a lack of support from key State and local leaders. Experience with the national mobilizations (Operation ABC) and with jurisdictions such as North Carolina, Georgia, Maryland and the District of Columbia suggests that this obstacle can be overcome to a significant degree by proactive efforts to gain the understanding, support and endorsement of various public and private organizations. Including a broad spectrum of such organizations as coalition members in the State's occupant protection program can be very effective in obtaining the commitment of key persons (e.g., the governor) and in gaining the support that is essential for sustained, highly visible enforcement efforts. Much innovation can be demonstrated in the way of developing public and official support for strong enforcement efforts.
Another obstacle frequently voiced by State and local enforcement officials is a lack of judicial and prosecutorial support for the enforcement of seat belt and child passenger safety laws. It has frequently been pointed out that an enforcement program can be undermined quickly if prosecutors fail to prosecute seat belt and child safety seat violations and judges repeatedly dismiss such cases. This can be overcome to some extent by educating prosecutors and judges across the State and urging them to value occupant protection laws as highly as any other traffic safety law.
In October 1997, the Buckle Up America (BUA) Campaign established ambitious national goals: (a) to increase seat belt use to 85 percent and reduce child-related fatalities (0-4 years) by 15 percent by the year 2000; and (b) to increase seat belt use to 90 percent and reduce child-related fatalities by 25 percent by the year 2005. This Campaign advocates a four part strategy: (1) building public-private partnerships; (2) enacting strong legislation; (3) maintaining high visibility law enforcement; (4) and conducting effective public education. Central to this Campaign's success is the encouragement of primary seat belt use laws and the implementation of two major enforcement mobilizations each year (Memorial Day and Thanksgiving holidays). During the November 1999 mobilization conducted throughout the week surrounding Thanksgiving, over 7,100 police agencies from all 50 states participated in Operation ABC.
The BUA Campaign and the efforts of the Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign (including Operation ABC) provide a useful framework for the implementation of this grant program. They provide a blueprint for projects that States may wish to implement, using funds to be made available in accordance with this notice. Conversely, this grant program provides an unprecedented opportunity to achieve the ambitious goals established under the BUA Campaign.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meetings.
This notice is to advise interested persons that RSPA will conduct public meetings in preparation for and to report the results of the eighteenth session of the United Nation's Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE) to be held July 3-13, 2000 in Geneva, Switzerland.
June 21, 2000 10 a.m.-1 p.m., Room 6244-6248; July 19, 2000, 10 a.m.-1 p.m., Room 6244-6248.
Both meetings will be held at DOT Headquarters, Nassif Building, Room 6244-6248, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Frits Wybenga, International Standards Coordinator, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, or Bob Richard, Assistant International Standards Coordinator, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-0656.
The primary purpose of the first meeting will be to prepare for the eighteenth session of the UNSCOE and to discuss U.S. positions on UNSCOE proposals. The primary purpose of the second meeting will be to provide a briefing on the outcome of the UNSCOE session and to prepare for the twenty-first Session of the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE) which is scheduled for December 4-13, 2000 in Geneva, Switzerland. Topics to be covered during the public meetings include: (1) Global harmonization of classification criteria, (2) Reformatting the UN Recommendations into a model rule, (3) Criteria for Environmentally Hazardous Substances, (4) Intermodal portable tank requirements including requirements for the transport of solids in portable tanks, (5) Requirements applicable to small quantities of hazardous materials in transport (limited quantities) including package marking requirements, package quantity limits and requirements applicable to consumer commodities, (6) Harmonized requirements for compress gas cylinders, (7) Classification of individual substances, (8) Requirements for bulk and non-bulk packagings used to transport hazardous materials and (9) Hazard communication requirements including harmonized shipping paper requirements.
The public is invited to attend without prior notification.
Copies of documents for the UNSCOE meeting may be obtained by downloading them from the United Nations Transport Division's web site at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc/dgscomm.html. Information concerning UN dangerous goods meetings including agendas can be downloaded at http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/meetings.htm#ST/SG. These sites may also be accessed through RSPA's Hazardous Materials Safety Homepage at http://hazmat.dot.gov/intstandards.htm. RSPA's site also provides information regarding the UNSCOE and related matters such as a summary of decisions taken at the 17th session of the UNSCOE, meeting dates and a summary of the primary topics which the UNSCOE plans to address in the 1999-2000 biennium.
The State of Georgia, Department of Transportation (GDOT), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from Georgia Southwestern Railroad, Inc. (GSWR) certain railroad assets, including approximately 71.13 miles of rail line extending between Rochelle, GA (milepost 644.00), and a point near Preston, GA (milepost 713.00), and between Omaha, GA ( milepost 753.00), and Mahrt, AL (milepost 755.13).
The transaction is scheduled to take place as soon as possible after the May 22, 2000 effective date of the exemption.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 33876, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Luke Cousins, State of Georgia, Department of Transportation, #2 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30334-1002.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before June 26, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before June 26, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before June 26, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before June 26, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before June 26, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before June 26, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in accordance with Public Law 103-446, and Public Law 92-463, (Committee) will be held from Monday, June 5, 2000 to Wednesday, June 7, 2000, in Washington, DC. The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority veterans; to assess the needs of minority veterans and to evaluate whether VA compensation, medical and rehabilitation services, outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
The meeting will convene to room 830, VA Central Office Building, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day. On June 5, the Committee will focus on such health care issues as minority health—a global assessment, medical research, Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) operations, and Minority and Veterans Business contacting. On Tuesday, June 6, the Committee will concentrate its effort on a report of a Veterans Identity Study, Hepatitis C infections, the cardiac care program evaluation, the Veterans' Benefits Administration's Road Map to Excellence and National Cemetery operations. The Committee will work in Subcommittees in the afternoon session. On Wednesday, June 7, the Committee will examine several diversity training programs and will begin drafting its annual report for Fiscal Year 2000.
These sessions will be open to the public. In order to notify the VA Security Office of the number of visitors to expect, those wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Anthony T.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 that a Meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans will be held June 15 and 16, 2000. This will be a regularly scheduled meeting for the purpose of reviewing VA services of veterans, and to formulate Committee recommendations and objectives. The meeting on both days will be held at The American Legion, Washington Office, 1608 K Street, NW, Washington, DC. The agenda on both days will commence at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m.
The agenda for Thursday, June 15, will include reviews of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) special emphasis programs for prosthetics, environmental agents and post-traumatic stress disorder. The agenda for both days will also include strategic planning sessions to formulate goals and objectives for a Committee field visit to VA facilities to be conducted later in the year.
On Friday, June 16, the Committee will review Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) programs related to PTSD compensation, vocational rehabilitation and counseling, and transition assistance.
The meeting will be open to the public. Those who plan to attend or who have questions concerning the meeting may contact Alfonso R. Batres, Chief Readjustment Counseling Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs Headquarters Office at (202) 273-8967.
In rule document 00-11921 beginning on page 31218 in the issue of Tuesday, May 16, 2000, make the following correction:
On pages 31223 and 31224, in §102-36.125(b), the table should read as set forth:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) establishes requirements and guidance for National Wildlife Refuge System planning, including Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) and step-down management plans. This policy, which incorporates the CCP provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, replaces Part 602 Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The new policy will appear as Part 602 Chapters 1, 3, and 4.
Our policy for managing units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is that we will manage all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP which, when implemented, will achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. The CCP will guide management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish these ends. We also may require step-down management plans to provide additional guidance for meeting CCP goals and objectives and to describe strategies and implementation schedules. Each plan will be consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management, available science, legal mandates, and our other policies, guidelines, and planning documents. We will prepare refuge plans that, above all else, ensure that wildlife comes first on national wildlife refuges.
This policy is effective upon publication in the
We will send a copy of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual chapters on Refuge System planning to those who submitted comments on the draft policy and to anyone who would like to receive them. Please contact Liz Bellantoni, Refuge Planning Coordinator, Division of Refuges, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at (703) 358-2422 if you would like to receive a copy. In addition, these chapters will be available on the Refuge System web site (http://refuges.fws.gov [select link to “Manual/Policies: Refuge Planning Policy']).
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge Administration Act), provides an “Organic Act” for the National Wildlife Refuge System. It clearly establishes that wildlife conservation is the principal mission of the Refuge System; provides guidance to the Secretary of the Interior for management of the Refuge System; reinforces the importance of comprehensive planning for all units of the Refuge System; and gives Refuge Managers uniform direction and procedures for making decisions regarding wildlife conservation and uses of the Refuge System.
Except for those refuges in Alaska (which are subject to the refuge planning provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]), the Refuge Administration Act requires that we manage all national wildlife refuges according to an approved CCP. We will prepare a CCP by October 2012 for each refuge in existence at the time of passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. For refuges established after passage of this Act, we will prepare CCPs when we staff the refuge and acquire a land base sufficient to achieve refuge purposes, but no later than 15 years after establishment of the refuge. The Refuge Administration Act also requires that we provide an opportunity for active public involvement during the preparation and revision of CCPs. These plans will guide management decisions and establish strategies for achieving the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of each refuge unit.
This policy establishes requirements and guidance for National Wildlife Refuge System planning, including CCPs and step-down management plans, and ensures that planning efforts comply with the provisions of the Refuge Administration Act.
On August 13, 1999, we published a notice in the
• placing greater emphasis on wildlife first and elevating our commitment to maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997;
• basing management decisions on a thorough assessment of available science;
• defining our relationship with States and other agencies and their programs;
• identifying biological information necessary for planning and management;
• clarifying under what conditions we should revise a CCP;
• expediting or further clarifying our planning process;
• describing the relationship of CCPs to refuge purposes and Refuge System mission; and
• addressing issues related to recreation and public use.
We reviewed and considered all substantive comments received. Following are public comments and our responses grouped under eight broad headings:
“We need to keep in mind that the law sets forth some very specific policies and requirements for the administration of the Refuge System. These include the basic mission of the System and the direction that compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the
1. Executive Order 12866 requiring economic impact analyses of any Federal action.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act requiring the evaluation of the effects of any proposed action on small entities.
3. Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 that applies to the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out any program as may be authorized by any law.
4. National Materials and Minerals Policy Research and Development Act of 1980, which mandates similar requirements as under the Mining and Minerals Policy Act.
The issuance of planning requirements as part of the Service Manual will accomplish the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Publishing planning rules in the Service Manual rather than the CFR does not diminish the requirements that they contain. Refuge Managers will be bound by those requirements that are mandatory whether or not we publish them in the CFR. In addition, because the planning chapters contain rules, we will have to use the same notice and comment procedure utilized to adopt these chapters if we decide to amend or change them.
We have chosen to use the Service Manual because: (1) The requirements are primarily working rules of procedure for Refuge Managers to follow with regard to areas that they manage; (2) the planning chapters contain a mix of rules that we must follow and general guidance that we normally will adhere to but that we may deviate from as the particular situation warrants; (3) the planning chapters do not directly regulate the public; (4) the planning chapters and the Service Manual are available to the public through either the Department of the Interior or the Fish and Wildlife Service home pages on the World Wide Web or by request made to any refuge or Service field, regional, or headquarters office and, therefore, are as available to the public as they would be if published in the CFR; and (5) publishing in the Service Manual rather than the CFR does not affect the strength of any rules that are in the chapters nor does it exempt us from procedural requirements.
“E. To assure that wildlife-dependent recreational uses receive priority consideration during the planning process and that plans include steps to facilitate such uses.”
“(x) existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses, opportunities for continuing, facilitating and expanding such uses, and strategies to accomplish such continuation, facilitation and expansion.”
“At a minimum, each refuge should develop goals within the following management areas: the continuation, facilitation and expansion of opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation * * *”
“We also need to evaluate the current or potential wildlife-dependent uses and consider opportunities to continue, facilitate and expand such uses.”
Charles J. Houghten, Acting Chief, Division of Refuge Planning, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the primary author of this notice.
1.1 What is the purpose of Part 602 and this chapter? Part 602 provides guidance for National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) planning, including specific chapters on the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process (602 FW 3) and Step-Down Management Plans (602 FW 4). This chapter (602 FW 1) provides an overview of refuge planning. We will add an additional chapter, Land Protection Planning (602 FW 2), in the near future.
1.2 To what does Part 602 apply? Part 602 applies to all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
1.3 What is our policy for managing refuges? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) will manage all refuges in accordance with an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), which, when implemented, will achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. The CCP will guide management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish these ends. We also may require step-down management plans to provide additional details about meeting CCP goals and objectives and to describe strategies and implementation schedules. Each plan will be founded on principles of sound fish and wildlife management and available science, and be consistent with legal mandates and our other policies, guidelines, and planning documents. We will prepare refuge plans that, above all else, ensure that wildlife comes first on national wildlife refuges.
1.4 What are our authorities? Authorities listed below include laws that require us to manage units of the Refuge System in accordance with approved CCPs and to integrate refuge planning decisions with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
A. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge Administration Act). This law states that “* * * the Secretary shall—(i) propose a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge or related complex of refuges * * * in the System; (ii) publish a notice of opportunity for public comment in the
B. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 140hh-3233, 43 U.S.C. 1602-1784 (ANILCA). Section 304 states, in part, “The Secretary shall prepare, and from time to time, revise, a comprehensive conservation plan * * * for each refuge.” You may find additional guidance on the content of these plans and management direction in this and other sections of ANILCA. If any provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 conflict with the provisions of ANILCA, the provisions of ANILCA will prevail for refuges in Alaska.
C. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508. NEPA is the basic national charter for protection of the environment. The procedural provisions in CEQ's regulations require Federal agencies to integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time in order to provide a systematic interdisciplinary approach; identify and analyze the environmental effects of their actions; describe appropriate alternatives to the proposal; involve the affected State and Federal agencies, Tribal governments, and the affected public in the planning and decision-making process; and fully integrate all refuge proposals that may have an impact on the environment with the provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1501.2).
1.5 What are the goals of refuge planning?
A. To ensure that wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
B. To ensure that we manage the Refuge System for the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and that refuge management achieves our policies, the Refuge System mission, and the purposes for which the refuge was established.
C. To ensure that the administration of the Refuge System contributes to the conservation of the ecological integrity of each refuge, the Refuge System, and to the structure and function of the ecosystems of the United States.
D. To ensure opportunities to participate in the refuge planning process are available to our other programs; Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribal governments; conservation organizations; adjacent landowners; and the public.
E. To provide a basis for adaptive management by monitoring progress, evaluating plan implementation, and updating refuge plans accordingly.
F. To promote efficiency, effectiveness, continuity, and national consistency in refuge management.
G. To help ensure consistent System-wide consideration of the six priority public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation—established by the Refuge Administration Act and to ensure that these uses receive enhanced consideration over general public uses in the Refuge System.
H. To ensure that we preserve the wilderness character of refuge lands.
1.6 What do the following terms mean? (Quotations are from the Refuge Administration Act unless otherwise noted)
A. Adaptive Management. The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A process that uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels.
B. Alternatives. Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues.
C. Biological Diversity. The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities in which they occur.
D. Biological Integrity. Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, organism, and community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities.
E. Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meets other mandates.
F. Coordination Area. A wildlife management area made available to a State, by “(A) cooperative agreement between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fish and game agency pursuant to Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 664); or (B) by long-term leases or agreements pursuant to the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.).” States manage Coordination Areas, but they are part of the Refuge System. We do not require CCPs for Coordination Areas.
G. Ecological Integrity. The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and environmental health; the replication of natural conditions.
H. Ecosystem. A biological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit. For administrative purposes, we have designated 53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their sizes and ecological complexity vary.
I. Environmental Health. Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment consistent with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.
J. Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units.
K. Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision,
L. National Wildlife Refuge (refuge). “A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within the Refuge System, but does not include Coordination Areas.” Find a complete listing of all units of the Refuge System in the current Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
M. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission (mission). “The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
N. Objective. A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Make objectives attainable, time-specific, and measurable.
O. Planning Area. The area upon which the planning effort will focus. A planning area may include lands outside existing planning unit boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the Refuge System and/or partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or ecosystems outside of our jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. At a minimum, the planning area includes all lands within the authorized boundary of the refuge.
P. Planning Team. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. Teams generally consist of a Planning Team Leader, Refuge Manager and staff biologists, a state natural resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (
Q. Planning Team Leader. The Planning Team Leader typically is a professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable of the requirements of NEPA and who has planning experience. The Planning Team Leader manages the refuge planning process and ensures compliance with applicable regulatory and policy requirements.
R. Planning Unit. A single refuge, an ecologically or administratively related refuge complex, or distinct unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include lands currently outside refuge boundaries.
S. Purposes of the Refuge. “The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order,
T. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). The Refuge Operating Needs System is a national database that contains the unfunded operational needs of each refuge. We include projects required to implement approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.
U. Step-Down Management Plan. A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and objectives.
V. Strategy. A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to meet unit objectives.
W. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission. Our mission is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
X. Wilderness Review. The process we use to determine if we should recommend Refuge System lands and waters to Congress for wilderness designation. The wilderness review process consists of three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. The inventory is a broad look at the refuge to identify lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness. The study evaluates all values (ecological, recreational, cultural), resources (e.g., wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (management and public) within the Wilderness Study Area. The findings of the study determine whether we will recommend the area for designation as wilderness.
Y. Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. “A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation.” These are the six priority public uses of the Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. We also will consider these other uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs, however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence.
Z. Vision Statement. A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other mandates.
1.7 What is the relationship between Refuge System planning and other planning efforts? Refuge planning should maintain continuity and consistency with other planning efforts. The relationship between these planning efforts is hierarchical, starting from national plans to regional, State, and ecosystem-level plans, stepping down to refuge-specific plans. See Exhibit 1-1. The process of adaptive management uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels.
A. National and Regional Plans. We will review other Service documents that address particular programs, species, habitats, public uses, economic uses, archaeological resources, etc., when identifying issues to address in refuge planning. National and regional goals, objectives, strategies, and policies influence management planning for refuges. Source documents include: Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service Manual, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, National Outreach Strategy, regional resource plans, endangered species recovery plans, migratory bird and flyway plans, fishery resource plans, Joint Venture plans, Partners in Flight plans, and strategies to promote the conservation of natural biological diversity. The contribution of the refuge to achieving regional and national goals will help implement our mission and ensure integrity of the Refuge System.
B. Service Ecosystem Plans, State Fish and Wildlife Conservation Plans, and Other Landscape-Level Plans. Refuge planning will reflect conservation goals and objectives for the landscapes in which the refuges are located. Refuges must review goals and objectives of existing ecosystem plans and determine how the refuge can best contribute to the functioning of the ecosystem. We will coordinate refuge planning with State conservation agencies, Tribal governments, other government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. To the extent practicable, refuge plans will be consistent with the fish and wildlife conservation plans of the State and the conservation programs of Tribal, public, and private partners within the ecosystem.
C. Land Acquisition Planning. We integrate land acquisition and CCP planning throughout the land acquisition planning process. We describe three opportunities for integration in the following paragraphs:
(1) Refuge planning typically begins before the establishment of an area as a unit of the Refuge System. Land acquisition planning (usually resulting in a Land Protection Plan [LPP] and associated NEPA document) is a preliminary step in the continuous, integrated refuge planning process. This process eventually results in completion of a CCP and appropriate refuge step-down management plans. Other land use, species, or habitat protection planning efforts, or legislative or executive directives may precede land acquisition planning. Refuge establishment documentation (LPP and associated NEPA document) should identify the approved refuge boundary, refuge purpose(s), goals, and general management direction. See 341 FW 2.
(2) Planning for proposed new refuges or major expansions to existing refuges not undergoing a CCP will include the development of a Conceptual Management Plan (CMP) for the new unit. The CMP provides general, interim management direction. The CMP should identify refuge purpose(s), interim goals, and pre-existing compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation) that we will allow to continue on an interim basis. The interim period is the duration of time between establishment of a new refuge or refuge expansion and the completion of an approved CCP. Refuges functioning under CMPs also will develop step-down management plans, as appropriate.
(3) Fully integrate land acquisition planning efforts into CCP preparation whenever possible. Some proposed new refuges or refuge expansions may warrant CCP development at the time of acquisition planning. Include appropriate Realty staff on the planning team when considering land acquisition during the CCP process to ensure consistency with land acquisition policy. See 341 FW 2.
D. Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP). The CCP is a document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the
E. Step-Down Management Plans. Step-down management plans provide the details (strategies and implementation schedules) necessary to meet goals and objectives identified in the CCP. CCPs will either incorporate or identify step-down management plans required to fully implement the CCP. After completion of the CCP, modify existing step-down management plans to accomplish stated goals and objectives as needed. See 602 FW 4.
F. Integration With Budget Development and Implementation. We will use CCPs to guide annual budget requests. We will identify the unfunded costs of implementing strategies in refuge plans using our budget databases, including the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS), Maintenance Management System (MMS), and Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS). As we complete or update each plan, we will review and update these databases to incorporate projects identified in CCPs. The total funding and staffing identified in these databases represents the additional resources required to fully implement the refuge plans.
1.8 Who is responsible for implementing our policy?
A. Director. The Director is responsible for providing national policy and ensuring adherence to refuge planning policy.
B. Regional Director. The Regional Director: (1) Ensures compliance with national planning policy, NEPA, and other applicable laws and policies; (2) approves CCPs, amendments to CCPs, and associated NEPA and other agency compliance documents; and (3) ensures that we manage refuges in accordance with approved CCPs. The Regional Director or designee approves step-down management plans, determines planning priorities, and allocates funds to develop and implement plans.
C. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System. The Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, is responsible for initiating and completing refuge plans, budgeting for planning, ensuring programmatic staff participation, and developing regional planning priorities. The Special Assistant for Ecosystems is responsible for ensuring that ecosystem teams participate in developing plans and implementing approved plans.
D. Refuge Planning Coordinator. The Washington Office, Division of Refuges, and each Region will designate a Refuge Planning Coordinator. In cooperation with representatives of our National Conservation Training Center, the Coordinators will establish and maintain appropriate training courses. Refuge Planning Coordinators will provide guidance and direction to assist Planning Team Leaders, regional and field-based planning staff, and planning team members. The Coordinators also are responsible for maintaining regional planning schedules and updating status reports and funding needs for the planning program. The Coordinators periodically will meet to review and recommend changes to planning policy, resolve common planning problems and issues, and help ensure national consistency.
E. Planning Team Leader. The Planning Team Leader is responsible for initiation of the planning process, preparation and completion of refuge plans, and ensuring that we meet compliance requirements. The Planning Team Leader, in consultation with the Refuge Manager, is responsible for identifying appropriate and proper representation on the interdisciplinary planning team, including team members, support personnel, and outside or contract assistance. The Refuge Manager and Planning Team Leader will submit the final CCP through line supervision for concurrence and approval by the Regional Director.
F. Refuge Supervisor. The Refuge Supervisor is responsible for overseeing participation of the Refuge Manager in CCP preparation and implementation, and for providing direction and guidance on compliance with Refuge System policy and regulations. Once the Planning Team Leader and Refuge Manager submit the plan, the Refuge Supervisor will be responsible for review and concurrence of the plan prior to its submission to the next level.
G. Refuge Manager. The Refuge Manager participates in the preparation of the CCP working closely with the Planning Team Leader. The Refuge Manager assures that the refuge staff participates in plan development. The Refuge Manager and Planning Team Leader submit the final CCP through line supervision for concurrence and approval by the Regional Director. The Refuge Manager is responsible for: making compatibility determinations; implementing approved CCPs and step-down management plans; tracking progress; and recommending changes to plans based on monitoring and evaluation. The Refuge Manager also reports plan accomplishments through standard reporting mechanisms and budgeting procedures.
H. Planning Team. The planning team, coordinated by the Planning Team Leader, is responsible for the initiation and completion of all planning steps, including public involvement and NEPA compliance, resulting in a refuge CCP. We describe the steps in 602 FW 3.4C. The planning team is responsible for the CCP's content in terms of information relating to management of refuge resources and use activities. The planning team will ensure that the CCP, when implemented, will achieve the purposes of the refuge and help fulfill the Refuge System mission.
I. Regional Environmental (NEPA) Coordinator. The Regional Environmental (NEPA) Coordinator provides technical assistance on NEPA-related matters.
3.1 What is the purpose of this chapter? Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) describe the desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. The purpose of this chapter is to describe a systematic decision-making process that fulfills the requirements we are establishing for developing a CCP. This policy provides guidance, step-by-step direction, and establishes minimum requirements for all CCPs. Experienced planners lead the CCP process. We require all of our planners and strongly encourage Refuge Managers and other key planning team members attend the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) course on Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Planning.
3.2 What is our policy for CCPs? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) must manage all national wildlife refuges according to an approved CCP. We will prepare a CCP by October 2012, for each refuge in existence at the time of passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. For refuges established after passage of this Act, we will prepare CCPs when we staff the refuge and acquire a land base sufficient to achieve refuge purposes, but no later than 15 years after establishment of the refuge. To the extent practicable, we will coordinate the development of CCPs with affected States. We will continue to manage each refuge or planning unit with existing plans effective prior to October 9, 1997, to the extent these plans are consistent with the Refuge Administration Act, until we revise such plans or new CCPs supersede them. Upon completion of a CCP, we will manage the refuge or planning unit in a manner consistent with the CCP. We will revise the CCP every 15 years thereafter, or earlier, if monitoring and evaluation determine that we need changes to achieve planning unit purpose(s), vision, goals, or objectives.
3.3 What are our goals for Comprehensive Conservation Planning?
A. To ensure that wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife Refuge System and that we manage each refuge to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System, maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System, as well as achieve the specific purposes for which the refuge was established.
B. To provide a clear and comprehensive statement of desired future conditions for each refuge or planning unit.
C. To encourage use of an ecosystem approach when we conduct refuge planning. This includes conducting concurrent refuge planning for refuges within the same watershed or ecosystem and considering the broader goals and objectives of the refuges' ecosystems and watersheds when developing management direction (see Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation [Part 052 of the Service Manual]).
D. To support management decisions and their rationale by using a thorough assessment of available science derived from scientific literature, on-site refuge data, expert opinion, and sound professional judgment.
E. To ensure that the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses receive priority consideration during the preparation of CCPs.
F. To provide a forum for the public to comment on the type, extent, and compatibility of uses on refuges, including priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses.
G. To provide a uniform basis for budget requests for operational, maintenance, and capital improvement programs.
H. To ensure public involvement in refuge management decisions by providing a process for effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with affected parties, including Federal agencies, State conservation agencies, Tribal governments, local governments, conservation organizations, adjacent landowners, and interested members of the public.
3.4 What is the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process?
A. The CCP process (see Exhibit 3-1) provides consistent guidelines for developing CCPs. We designed the planning process to result in the development of vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies that achieve refuge or planning unit purpose(s); help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates.
B. Each CCP will comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through the concurrent preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will accompany or be integrated with the CCP. We have integrated NEPA compliance requirements directly into the CCP process. When preparing an EA, consider integrating it into the draft CCP. When preparing an EIS with a CCP, integrate the documents. Following completion of the final CCP/NEPA document, the product of the planning process will be a stand-alone CCP, separate from the EA or EIS.
C. Our CCP planning process consists of the following eight steps. Although we display the steps sequentially, CCP planning and NEPA documentation are iterative processes. Cycling through some of the steps more than once or having several steps occurring simultaneously is normal. Actions within each of the eight steps may not be sequential.
(a) Planning Team. The Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, appoints the Planning Team Leader. The Planning Team Leader assembles the planning team, which consists of the Planning Team Leader, the Refuge Manager and key staff members, and appropriate support staff or specialists from both regional and field offices (
(b) Identify Refuge Purpose(s), History, and Establishing Authority. Document the history of refuge establishment and management, as well as refuge purposes and authorizing authority (
(c) Identify Planning and Compliance Requirements and Special Designations. Review our agency and Refuge System mission statements and policies, as well as other existing legislation to help identify planning and compliance requirements.
(d) Purpose and Need for the Plan. The purpose of developing the CCP is to provide the Refuge Manager with a 15-year management plan for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related habitats, while providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The CCP, when fully implemented, should achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. The CCP must be specific to the planning unit and identify the overarching wildlife, public use, or management needs for the refuge.
(e) Planning Area and Data Needs. Delineate the planning area on a map. Identify the relationship between the planning unit and its ecosystem(s) and watershed(s) as well as relationships between the planning unit and any other refuges or other important fish and wildlife habitats in the vicinity. Identify data available to address issues discussed in Step (h) Internal Scoping. Obtain information from Federal, Tribal, State and local agencies, and private landowners concerning land management issues that may impact or relate to the planning unit. To assist in determining species or resources of concern, consult the following: Federal threatened and endangered species lists; Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States; Partners in Flight Watch List; State lists of rare, threatened, endangered, or species of concern; National Audubon Society State Watch Lists; The Nature Conservancy's heritage program and ranking system; as well as State heritage databases and conservation data centers for additional sources of information. Also identify resource experts familiar with the key species and habitats in the planning area, and consult with these experts during the development of habitat objectives. Base CCPs on a comprehensive assessment of the existing scientific literature. Potential sources of information include planning documents, EAs, EISs, annual narrative reports, information from previously conducted or ongoing research, data from refuge inventories or studies, published literature on related biological studies, State conservation management plans, field management experience, etc. While we may not be able to develop new data for the CCP, we may identify the need for further data collection. A lack of data should not delay the completion of the CCP. Identify and describe the following conditions and their trends for the planning unit and, as appropriate, for the planning area:
(i) Context of the planning unit in relation to the surrounding ecosystem.
(ii) Structures, components, and functions of the ecosystem(s) of which the planning unit is a part.
(iii) Natural and historic role of fire and other natural occurrences affecting ecological processes.
(iv) Past land use and history of settlement, including a description of any changes in topography, hydrology, and other factors.
(v) Current and historic description of the flora and fauna and the diversity of habitats and natural communities.
(vi) Distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant populations, including any threatened or endangered species, and related habitats.
(vii) Fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats and communities that are rare and/or declining within the ecosystem.
(viii) Water resources including quality and quantity.
(ix) Archaeological and other cultural resources.
(x) Significant problems that may adversely affect the ecological integrity or wilderness characteristics and the actions necessary to correct or mitigate the problems.
(xi) Identify opportunities to improve the health of habitats or the functioning of ecosystems.
(xii) Significant problems that may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants (including candidate, threatened, and endangered species) and the actions necessary to correct or mitigate the problems.
(xiii) Known or suspected sources of environmental contaminants and their potential impacts on the planning unit (refer to the Contaminant Assessment Program).
(xiv) Land acquisition or habitat protection efforts.
(xv) Habitat management practices.
(xvi) Existing administrative resources, including staffing, funding, and facilities.
(xvii) Existing transportation patterns and related visitor facilities.
(xviii) Potential need for administrative sites, transportation improvements, or visitor facilities and areas within the planning unit that are suitable for such sites.
(xix) Existing and potential opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation.
(xx) Existing special management areas, or the potential for such designations (
(f) Review All Available Information, Plans, Data, Maps, and Data Standards. Based on this review, determine what the initial planning area includes and identify any additional information and data needs, including mapping and GIS needs. Note: All Federal agencies and their contractors must comply with data standards endorsed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (Executive Order 12906; 59 FR 17671, April 13, 1994). Of particular relevance to refuge planning are the National Vegetation Classification Standard (FGDC-STD-005) and the Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats (FGDC-STD-004). Compliance with these standards will facilitate the sharing and exchange of high-quality vegetation and wetland data among Federal agencies and their
(g) Vision and Goals. Review the existing planning unit vision statement and goals and determine the need for revision. If these do not exist, prepare a draft vision statement and goals for consideration during public scoping. The vision statement should focus on what will be different in the future because of our efforts, capture the essence of what we are trying to do, and why. It should be future-oriented, concise, clear, compelling, and give a sense of purpose to our efforts. At a minimum, each refuge should develop goals for wildlife species or groups of species, habitat (including land protection needs), compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, other mandates (such as refuge-specific legislation, executive orders, special area designations, etc.), and fish, wildlife, and plant populations, as appropriate. The vision statement and goals will reflect planning unit purposes; help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintain and, where appropriate, restore ecological integrity; and will be consistent with mandates and principles of sound fish and wildlife management. Planning unit goals also will reflect our ecosystem goals to the extent these goals do not conflict with the Refuge System mission or the purposes for which the refuge was established. We also may develop refuge goals for our other mandates. Subsequently, we will develop objectives for achieving planning unit goals (see 602 FW 3.4 C (4)(d) Objective Development). For additional information on developing goals and objectives, see the current edition of Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook.
(h) Internal Scoping. Begin the internal scoping process by identifying management concerns, issues, and opportunities to resolve them, as well as any potential impacts and alternatives that we may need to address in the CCP and NEPA analysis. Review the background, rationale, and the success or failure of any controversial management actions and identify any additional information and data needed where appropriate.
(i) Public Involvement/Outreach Planning. Prepare a Public Involvement/Outreach Plan indicating how and when we will invite the affected public to participate in CCP development. This plan will include establishing a mailing list and identifying appropriate techniques and materials to use in public involvement. We integrate public involvement and outreach into each step, and it continues throughout the planning process. For additional information on public involvement techniques, consult the Public Participation Handbook (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985) or the NCTC Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Planning Course Handbook and Reference Notebook.
(j) Work Plan/Planning Schedule. Establish a work plan or planning schedule for the CCP. Determine who will be responsible for carrying out identified tasks, gathering information and data, and preparing products identified in the work plan or schedule. Identify all key NEPA compliance steps and public involvement activities. Identify any additional expertise, besides the planning team, required to prepare the CCP. This may include an economist, a facilitator for public and other meetings, other contracted professional services, etc.
(k) Planning Record. Establish a planning record to document the preparation of the CCP and NEPA compliance, and assign its maintenance to a team member. The planning record will serve as a valuable reference and provide important background and historical information. If there is a legal challenge to the CCP, use the planning record to construct the administrative record. For additional information on the planning record, consult the NCTC Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Planning Course Handbook and Reference Notebook.
(a) Notice of Intent. Prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a CCP, with appropriate NEPA compliance, and publish the NOI in the
(b) Public Scoping. Using news releases to the local media and other appropriate means, notify the affected public of the opportunity to participate in the preparation of the CCP and begin the scoping process. Involve the public and gather comments on any existing planning unit vision statement and goals. Encourage the public to help identify potential issues, management actions and concerns, significant problems or impacts, and opportunities or alternatives to resolve them. Public scoping will continue until we prepare a draft CCP/NEPA document.
(c) Issues and Data Needs. Analyze all comments gathered and recorded during the scoping process. Identify any new information, issues, concerns, or significant problems, opportunities to resolve them, and potential refinements or revisions of any existing planning unit vision statement and goals. Based on this analysis, identify any additional information and data needed.
(a) Vision and Goals. Review and evaluate the public's comments on the planning unit vision statement and goals. Based on this review, modify the vision and goals for the planning unit as appropriate.
(b) Determine Significant Issues. Review and evaluate all potential issues, management concerns, and problems and the opportunities to resolve them that the planning team and the public have identified. Identify those issues and concerns that are significant, and the appropriate scale at which to consider those issues. Document the rationale for selecting significant issues, as well as the rationale for not selecting the other issues and concerns (
This part of the process is not sequential, it is iterative. Iterative procedures in this step of the process include: Issue assessment; refinement and development of goals, objectives, and strategies; analysis and comparison of impacts and benefits of management actions; and the packaging or combining of similar themes or programs to develop preliminary alternatives and assessment of their environmental consequences. The alternatives should reflect different sets of objectives and strategies to achieve refuge purposes, vision, and goals, help fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolve issues. Prepare maps depicting the different strategies reflected in each alternative. Also display this information in a
(a) No Action Alternative. Define the No Action Alternative, which is usually a continuation of current planning unit objectives and management strategies, with no changes or changes that would have occurred without the CCP.
(b) A Range of Alternatives. Develop a range of alternatives, or different approaches to planning unit management, that we could reasonably undertake to achieve planning unit goals and refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; meet other mandates, and resolve any significant issues identified. Alternatives consist of different sets of objectives and strategies for management of the refuge. Give equal effort to each alternative regarding specific objectives and strategies so that the decision maker can make an informed choice. NEPA requires an equal and full analysis of all alternatives considered for implementation.
(c) Proposed Action. The planning team will recommend a proposed action in the NEPA document for the CCP identifying the alternative that best achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and goals; helps fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; addresses the significant issues and mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. The proposed action is, for all practical purposes, the draft CCP for the planning unit.
(d) Objective Development. Develop objectives to address each goal. Word objectives so it is clear what we can measure during monitoring to assess progress toward their attainment. Consult the Service Manual chapters on habitat management, populations management, wilderness management, and wildlife-dependent recreation during the development of objectives. Develop detailed, measurable objectives using available scientific literature and other appropriate information. Develop objectives with consideration of regional and Service ecosystem goals and objectives. Develop objectives for specific refuge habitat types, management units, key species (
(e) Strategy Development. Develop strategies to identify the specific actions, tools, or techniques that are necessary to accomplish each objective. Strategies represent specific projects that provide the detail required to assess and develop funding, staffing, and partnerships needed to implement the plan. Develop inventory and monitoring strategies to measure implementation results in quantifiable and verifiable ways. We may require step-down management plans to provide the specific details of how to achieve goals and objectives identified in the CCP.
(f) Environmental Consequences. Assess the environmental consequences (direct, indirect, and cumulative) of implementing each alternative as required by NEPA. Compare the consequences of implementing each alternative in relation to the No Action Alternative, which serves as a baseline. Describe the adverse and beneficial impacts of implementing each alternative on fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats; any threatened or endangered species; cultural resources; the local economy; the ability to provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses; conflicts between priority uses and other uses; and other issues identified earlier in the planning process. This analysis must provide the level of detail necessary to assess the compatibility of all proposed uses. Describe each alternative's ability to achieve planning unit purpose(s), vision, and goals; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; ensure that we maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and address the significant issues and mandates. This assessment also will identify the funding, staffing, and facilities required for implementation of each alternative.
(a) Draft CCP and NEPA Document. Concurrently prepare the draft CCP and appropriate NEPA documentation (EA or EIS). When preparing an EA, consider integrating the draft CCP with the EA. When preparing an EIS with a CCP, integrate the documents. If the decision is to prepare a separate EA, see Exhibit 3-4 for a recommended CCP outline. If the documents are separate, the proposed action in the EA must contain all of the major actions of the draft CCP. If the decision is to merge the CCP and EA, see Exhibit 3-5 for a recommended outline. During the process of preparing the CCP, refer to Exhibit 3-3 to ensure inclusion of all required elements in the plan. Ensure compliance regarding other programs and policies, including: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act; Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act; Executive Order 13007—Indian Sacred Sites; Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management; Executive Order 11990—Protection of Wetlands; etc. See Exhibit 3-2 for a list of mandates to consider during the planning process.
(b) Compatibility Determinations. Complete new compatibility determinations or re-evaluate existing compatibility determinations as part of the CCP process for all individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related uses associated with the proposed action. Prepared concurrently with the CCP, incorporate the draft compatibility determinations into the draft CCP as an appendix. We require public review and comment for all compatibility determinations. We can achieve this concurrently through public review and comment of the draft CCP and NEPA document. While other alternatives do not require compatibility determinations, assess the environmental consequences, and, for all practical purposes, compatibility of all uses proposed in those alternatives in the NEPA document. For additional information on compatibility determinations, see 603 FW 2.
(c) Pre-acquisition Compatibility Determinations. If our proposed action includes expanding the planning unit by acquiring new lands, the draft CCP and NEPA documents also must identify any existing wildlife-dependent recreational public uses deemed compatible that we will allow to continue after acquisition. Incorporate these pre-acquisition compatibility determinations into the draft CCP and NEPA document.
(d) Internal Review. Submit the draft CCP and NEPA document for internal review within the Region following established procedures. Include in the review refuge program managers,
(e) Public Notice, Review, and Comment. Prepare a Notice of Availability of the draft CCP and NEPA document and publish it in the
(a) Public Comment, Analysis, and Response. Review and analyze all written and oral comments received from the public on the draft CCP and NEPA document. Determine which comments are substantive and warrant written response. Modify the document(s) as appropriate. Prepare a summary of the public comments received and a statement of the disposition of concerns expressed in those comments, noting where we have changed the document(s) or why we did not make such changes. Incorporate the summary and statement of disposition into the final document(s) (usually in the NEPA document or a CCP appendix).
(b) Final CCP and NEPA Document(s). Identify the preferred alternative and prepare the final CCP and appropriate NEPA documentation. The preferred alternative can be the proposed action, the no action alternative, another alternative, or a combination of actions or alternatives discussed in the draft CCP and NEPA document. Following completion of the final CCP/NEPA document, the product of the CCP process is a stand-alone CCP (the preferred alternative for the planning unit). During the process of preparing the final plan, refer to Exhibit 3-3 to ensure inclusion of all required elements.
(c) Internal Review. Submit the final document(s) for internal review within the Region according to established procedures. Refer to 3.4 C (5)(d) for a list of those to include in the review. Consider all comments received from the internal review and make appropriate changes to the final document(s).
(d) Decision Document. The decision document (either a Finding of No Significant Impact [FONSI] or a Record of Decision [ROD]) will certify that we have met agency compliance requirements and that the CCP, when implemented, will achieve the purposes of the refuge and help fulfill the Refuge System mission.
(i) CCP with an EA and FONSI. The Refuge Manager and Planning Team Leader submit the final CCP and FONSI through line supervision for concurrence and approval by the Regional Director. The Regional Director will sign and date both the FONSI and the final CCP. Following approval, print and distribute the final document(s) and appropriate appendices. Provide the FONSI to all interested and affected parties. Concurrent with the distribution of the FONSI, provide the final, approved, stand-alone CCP or a summary to all interested parties. In some cases we may require a 30-day public review period for the FONSI (see 550 FW 3.3 B (4)(c)). In these cases, we may not sign or release the final CCP until the end of the 30-day review.
(ii) CCP with an EIS and ROD. The Refuge Manager and Planning Team Leader submit the final EIS/CCP through line supervision for concurrence and approval to release these documents to the public. Provide these documents to interested and affected parties for at least 30 days prior to issuing a ROD. Following this period, submit the ROD through line supervision for concurrence and approval by the Regional Director. The Regional Director will sign and date both the ROD and the final CCP. Following approval, print the final documents and appropriate appendices. Provide the ROD or notification of its availability to all interested and affected parties. Concurrent with the release of the ROD, provide or make available the final, approved, stand-alone CCP or a summary to interested parties. Effective with the signing and release of the ROD, implement the CCP.
(iii) Stand-Alone CCP. The final product of the CCP process is a stand-alone CCP (the preferred alternative for the planning unit).
(e) Public Notice. Prepare a Notice of Availability of the final approved CCP and NEPA document(s) and publish it in the
Following approval of the CCP and public notification of the decision, begin implementing the strategies identified in the CCP. Allocate funding and staff time to the priority strategies as defined in the CCP. Initiate the monitoring and evaluation process identified in the CCP to determine if we are making progress in achieving the planning unit purpose(s), vision, and goals. Monitoring should address habitat or population objectives, and the effects of management activities. See 701 FW 2. Describe the sampling design sufficiently so it may be replicated. Through adaptive management, evaluation of monitoring and research results may indicate the need to modify refuge objectives or strategies.
(a) Plan Review. Review the CCP at least annually to decide if it requires any revisions. Modify the plan and associated management activities whenever this review or other monitoring and evaluation determine that we need changes to achieve planning unit purpose(s), vision, and goals.
(b) Plan Revision. Revise the CCP when significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions change, major refuge expansion occurs, or when we identify the need to do so during plan review. This should occur every 15 years or sooner, if necessary. All plan revisions should follow the procedures outlined in this policy for preparing plans and will require NEPA compliance. Document minor plan revisions that meet the criteria of a
(c) Ongoing Public Involvement. Continue informing and involving the public through appropriate means.
4.1 What is the purpose of this chapter? This chapter provides guidance on step-down management planning.
4.2 What is our policy for step-down management planning? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) will prepare step-down management plans when required by policy or when they may be necessary to provide strategies and implementation schedules for meeting goals and objectives identified in Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs). Step-down management plans should include public involvement and National
4.3 What is the applicability of step-down management planning and its relationship to Comprehensive Conservation Plans?
A. Step-down management planning is the formulation of detailed plans for meeting goals and objectives identified in the CCP.
B. Step-down management plans describe the specific strategies and implementation schedules we are to follow, “stepping down” from general goals and objectives. The preparation of new step-down management plans or substantial changes to existing step-down management plans typically will require further compliance with NEPA and other policies, and an opportunity for public review. For public use plans or other step-down management plans dealing with proposed uses of the refuge, prepare and append compatibility determinations to the plans.
C. The CCP will identify which step-down management plans are necessary and provide a schedule for their completion. After completion of the CCP, modify existing step-down management plans as needed to accomplish stated objectives. See 602 FW 3. In the absence of an approved CCP, we will develop step-down management plans to describe goals, objectives, strategies, implementation schedules, and details necessary to implement a management program.
D. As an alternative to separate step-down management plans, we may address management programs in detail during preparation of the CCP. Determining which programs we can address in detail in the CCP depends on several factors, including the degree of public interest, the amount of available information, and the complexity of the issues.
4.4 How do we combine step-down management plans? Address management subjects individually or combined into a single, integrated step-down management plan. This decision rests with the Refuge Manager. Base the decision on strategies defined in the CCP, the relationship between program areas, and the complexity of the programs under consideration. Some program areas, such as fire management and habitat management, logically suggest an integrated approach.
4.5 What is the list of potential step-down management plans? Following is the current list of potential refuge step-down management plans. Consider all of these plans during the CCP process. The CCP will document which plans we require for the planning unit.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
The FHWA and the FTA are jointly issuing this document which proposes revisions to the regulations governing the development of transportation plans and programs for urbanized (metropolitan) areas and statewide transportation plans and programs. These revisions are a product of statutory changes made by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) enacted on June 9, 1998, and generally would revise existing regulatory language to make it consistent with current statutory requirements. In addition, the proposed regulatory language addresses the implementation of Presidential Executive Order 12898 regarding Environmental Justice. These changes are being proposed in concert with revisions to regulations regarding environmental impact and related procedures which are published separately in today's
Comments must be received on or before August 23, 2000. For dates of public information meetings see “Supplementary Information.”
All signed, written comments must refer to the docket number appearing at the top of this document and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments received will be available for examination at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard. For addresses of public information meetings see “Supplementary Information.”
For the FHWA: Mr. Sheldon M. Edner, Metropolitan Planning and Policies Team (HEPM), (202) 366-4066 (metropolitan planning), Mr. Dee Spann, Statewide Planning Team (HEPS), (202) 366-4086 (statewide planning), or Mr. Reid Alsop, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-31), (202) 366-1371. For the FTA: Mr. Charles Goodman, Metropolitan Planning Division (TPL-12) (metropolitan planning), (202) 366-1944, Mr. Paul Verchinski, Statewide Planning Division (TPL-11)(statewide planning), (202) 366-6385, or Mr. Scott Biehl, Office of the Chief Counsel (TCC-30), (202) 366-0952. Both agencies are located at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours for the FHWA are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., and for the FTA are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
We will hold a series of seven public briefings within the comment period for the NPRM. The purpose of these briefings is to explain the content of the NPRM and encourage public input to the final rulemaking. The meetings will address this NPRM, the companion NPRM on the environmental (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)) process, and the NPRM on Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture consistency. The meetings will be scheduled from approximately 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the locations listed below. Further information and any changes in addresses, dates and other logistical information will be made available after the publication of this NPRM through the FHWA and the FTA websites, and through other public announcement avenues and the newsletters and websites of major stakeholder groups. Individuals wishing information, but without access to these sources, may contact the individuals listed in the above caption
The structure of the meetings will emphasize brief presentations by the DOT staff regarding the content of the NPRM. A period for clarifying questions will be provided. Under current statutory and regulatory provisions, the DOT staff will not be permitted to engage in a substantive dialog regarding what the content of the NPRMs and the final regulations should be. Attendees wishing to express ideas and thoughts regarding the final content of the rules should direct those comments to the docket. Briefing sites will include: Boston, MA, Auditorium, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, June 9, 2000; Atlanta, GA, Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree Street, June 20, 2000; Washington, D.C., Marriott Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW, June 23, 2000; Chicago, IL, Holiday Inn Mart Plaza, 350 North Orleans Street, June 27, 2000; Denver, CO, Marriott City Center, 1701 California Street, June 30 , 2000; Dallas, TX, Hyatt Regency Hotel Dallas, 300 Reunion Boulevard, July 11, 2000; and, San Francisco, CA, Radisson Miyako, 1625 Post Street, July 19, 2000.
As part of the outreach process planned for these proposed rules, the FHWA/FTA will be conducting a national teleconference on June 15, 2000 from 1-4 p.m. eastern time, through the auspices of the Center for Transportation and the Environment at North Carolina State University. The teleconference will be accessible through numerous downlink locations nationwide and further information can be obtained from Ms. Katie McDermott at
An overview of each of the three notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) will be presented and the audience (remote and local) will have opportunities to ask questions and seek clarification of FHWA/FTA proposals. By sponsoring this teleconference it is hoped that interest in the NPRMs is
Sections 1203, 1204, and 1308 of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, amended 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, which require a continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated transportation planning process in metropolitan areas and States. Similar changes were made by sections 3004, 3005, and 3006 of the TEA-21 to 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306 which address the metropolitan planning process in the context of the FTA's responsibilities. We are proposing revisions to our current metropolitan and statewide planning regulations and are inviting comments on the proposed revisions.
Revisions to the current regulation at 23 CFR part 450 are being proposed to reflect the impacts of the TEA-21. We have adopted an approach to the proposed revisions that will rely heavily on guidance and good practice. The proposed regulatory language attempts to respond to legislative mandates and changes with minimal amplification where feasible. In some cases, other factors,
In a separate document in today's
In preparing this proposed rule, we have attempted to maintain or reduce the level of data collection and analyses that is currently required. We solicit comment on the extent to which this strategy has been achieved. Comments suggesting that the strategy has not been successful should identify specific requirements and/or provisions that increase burdens and provide specific reasons for this increase. The degree or extent of the increase should be identified also. Suggestions to lessen burdens are welcome.
In the proposed rule, we revised the section headings to utilize more commonplace language and for clarity. The substance of the sections is modified in some cases as described below. The organization of each section and overall flow of organization remains predominantly unchanged, except as indicated in the section-by-section discussion.
In addition, we are proposing a new numbering scheme. Current part 450 would be redesignated as part 1410.
As noted above, the TEA-21 was signed into law on June 9, 1998. Subsequently, the DOT initiated a series of national meetings to solicit input regarding possible approaches to implementing the new legislation. The results of the principal public sessions in this outreach effort are summarized in “Listening to America: TEA-21 Outreach Summary, 1998.” This document was published by the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. It is currently available online through the following website:
Our strategy for regulatory development has three principal elements: (1) Outreach and listening to stakeholders, (2) developing improvements that will allow the FHWA, the FTA, the States and metropolitan areas to demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving congressional objectives, and (3) looking internally, with our Federal partner agencies, at how we collectively can improve coordination and performance.
As indicated above, the FHWA and the FTA, in concert with the Office of the Secretary and other modal administrations within the DOT, developed and implemented an extensive public outreach process on all elements of the TEA-21. The process began shortly after the legislation was enacted on June 9, 1998, and various types of outreach activities have been underway since that time. The initial six-month departmentwide outreach process included twelve regional forums and over 50 focus groups and workshops (63 FR 40330, July 28, 1998). The DOT heard from over 3,000 people, including members of Congress, Governors and Mayors, other elected officials, transportation practitioners at all levels, community activists and environmentalists, freight shippers and suppliers, and other interested individuals. The input received was valuable and has helped us shape our implementation strategy, guidance and regulations. Those comments will be placed in this docket as informational background.
With respect to the planning and environmental provisions of the TEA-21, we learned a great deal through the twelve regional forums and focus group sessions and subsequently implemented a second, more focused phase of outreach which included issuing an Options Paper for discussion on the Planning and Environmental Streamlining Provisions of the TEA-21. The contents of the Options Paper
More than 150 different sets of comments were received from State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), counties, regional planning commissions, other Federal agencies, transit agencies, bicycle advocacy groups, engineering organizations, consultants, historical commissions, environmental groups, and customers—the American public. These comments were all reviewed and taken into consideration in the development of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Another element of outreach included meetings between the FHWA and the FTA and key stakeholder groups, other Federal agencies, and the regional and field staff within the FHWA and the FTA. These sessions also helped guide us in developing this notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments on this NPRM are welcomed and will be taken into account prior to the issuance of a final regulation on statewide and metropolitan planning under the TEA-21.
The Options Paper comments are contained in the docket and are summarized below. This general summary is structured around the issues as presented in the Options Paper and seeks to provide an overall perspective on the range of opinions submitted to the FHWA and the FTA. Details on specific comments and input can be obtained by reviewing the materials in the docket.
These proposed rules were developed by an interagency task force of planners and environmental specialists of the FHWA and the FTA, with input from other DOT modal agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other Federal agencies and the Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT. The task force reviewed all input received from the outreach process and through other sources which communicate regularly with the DOT. In addition, comments were solicited from the field staff of the FHWA and the FTA.
The following discussion summarizes the comments received on the Options Paper and the response we are generally taking in structuring this proposed rule. This summary focuses only on the comments directly related to planning. The comments regarding environmental provisions, generally, are treated in the preamble to the proposed revision to 23 CFR 771. Cross-cutting issues as discussed in the Options Paper appear in both preambles, as appropriate. Since many commenters included both planning and environmental topics in their correspondence, an exact count of planning versus environment issues in the 150 comments received is not easy or useful. The summary is not intended to be complete or comprehensive. Rather, it is provided to give the public a general sense of the issues addressed in the comments received. The views of individual commenters can be obtained by consulting the docket as indicated above.
We were offered a number of options on how to ensure that the seven new planning factors added by the TEA-21 are addressed in the metropolitan and statewide planning processes. One option is to include the TEA-21 statutory language in the planning regulation and provide maximum flexibility to States and MPOs to tailor approaches to local conditions. In addition, it was suggested that we amplify the basic statutory language in this regulation by providing information to States and MPOs, including best practices on approaches to considering the factors, and technical assistance on planning practices which integrate consideration of the seven factors. A third possibility was to develop specific criteria for the consideration of each of the seven factors, include the criteria in this regulation, and require that State DOTs and MPOs demonstrate compliance through the planning certification process.
The vast majority of comments received on the planning factors, including those from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the National Association of County Engineers (NACE), the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), supported a twofold approach: (1) To include the TEA-21 statutory language in the planning regulation without further regulatory requirements, and (2) to provide technical assistance and information on current practices to States and MPOs to aid them in consideration of the planning factors. An additional point raised, by State DOTs and MPOs in particular, was that guidance, if issued by the FHWA and the FTA, should not be construed as constituting new, binding requirements on State DOTs and MPOs.
The TEA-21 directs that operation and management of the transportation system requires greater attention during planning. Capital investment, especially for new capacity but also for system preservation, has dominated traditional transportation planning analyses and decisions. Continuing fiscal constraint, growing sensitivity to environmental impacts of infrastructure and the need for prudent management of infrastructure all lead to a heightened consideration of systems management and operational strategies as part of systems planning. The emergence of various Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies as useful tools in the operation and management of the transportation system has also highlighted the need to focus increased attention in this area. An additional factor in treating ITS as part of system operation and management are the requirements of section 5206(e) of the TEA-21 regarding the consistency of federally funded ITS projects (funded with highway trust fund dollars) with the National ITS Architecture.
Many individual State DOTs, MPOs, and their national associations (AMPO and AASHTO) expressed the view that the planning factor requiring consideration of strategies to promote efficient system management and operation is sufficient to direct States and MPOs to consider operations and management issues as an integral part of their planning efforts. They indicated that the seven factors are all important and that to highlight consideration of any one factor above all others is inappropriate. Further, they felt that treating operations and management issues with any additional emphasis would be duplicative and is not necessary.
Only one commenter, the Maricopa Association of Governments, explicitly addressed the ITS matter. This agency suggested that we implement a requirement for federally funded ITS projects to be in accord with a regional ITS plan that is developed through a cooperative process.
The TEA-21 retained the basic requirement for financially constrained metropolitan plans and statewide and metropolitan transportation improvement programs (STIPs/TIPs).
In general, many State DOTs and the AASHTO seek the greatest flexibility while MPOs and local governments seek provisions which would ensure that they get a “fair share” of Federal funding. The NACE, the AMPO, the National Association of Counties (NACO), and the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) observe that a formal process should be required based upon consensus of the State, MPO, and transit agencies (where applicable) and that the process should be documented and implemented with an adequate phase-in period provided. The national associations and many of their constituent members commented that the process which has evolved over the past several years is inadequate for MPO and local agency needs, and that the Congress intended that this be rectified through the TEA-21 clarifying language. Both the NACE and the AMPO support the development of formal procedures, including decision rules for allocating funds and the development of internal and external dispute resolution and appeals processes to ensure that revenue forecasting is a truly collaborative process. The NACE also suggests that the FHWA and the FTA serve as “honest brokers” between State transportation agencies and MPOs when there is disagreement on revenue forecasts and allocation.
Organizations and agencies, including the Indian Nation Council of Governments, the Public Policy Institute of California, the AMPO, and the EPA raised concerns about the need for coordination between States and MPOs in cases where illustrative projects are proposed to be added to metropolitan area plans or TIPs. Specifically, it was suggested that in metropolitan areas, MPOs should have explicit approval authority for the inclusion of such projects in transportation plans and TIPs and for the implementation of illustrative projects.
On the whole, respondents supported a position that illustrative projects are important to them, but that such projects should not be included in the transportation plan or TIP conformity analysis until formally amended into the Plan/TIP. In addition, there was considerable support for an approach which requires MPO concurrence on projects that are proposed to be advanced to an MPO plan and/or TIP. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the Colorado DOT expressed concern that illustrative projects would be allowed to circumvent the planning process. State DOTs, in particular, advocated allowing illustrative projects to be included in the conformity analyses for plans and TIPs in order that it may be demonstrated that they will not jeopardize the conformity of plans and TIPs.
The AASHTO and several State DOTs felt that we are being too restrictive in our definition of a financially constrained plan. In short, these commenters request more flexibility. Some State DOTs, including the Texas, New Jersey, Missouri, and Virginia DOTs point out that they feel it entirely appropriate to conduct NEPA related project development activities and studies on such projects, outside of the fiscal constraint requirements. They endorse amending such projects into the plan and TIP when appropriate, and at that time trigger fiscal constraint and conformity requirements.
During the outreach process, the Missouri DOT, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) remarked that MPOs do not have the authority to obligate Federal funds and that States and transit agencies are the authorized recipients of Federal funds. Therefore, they suggest, the States, transit agencies, and/or the Federal government need to provide the necessary information to the MPOs in order that they may comply with the TEA-21 requirement for an annual listing of projects.
The AMPO recommended that we establish and maintain a project monitoring system for the purpose of tracking Federal highway and transit obligations and that we make this system accessible to the MPOs in order that it might provide the basis for the annual listing of projects. These stakeholders are concerned that there be clear direction to the implementing agencies (States and transit agencies) for meeting this TEA-21 requirement. Further, they are concerned that MPOs, without the assistance of implementing agencies, do not have the necessary information to comply with this requirement. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) felt the annual list should include all obligated funds, rather than just projects with Federal funding.
The U.S. EPA believes a nationally uniform format for these lists should be developed and that such lists should be sent to State and Federal environmental agencies, the interagency consultation groups under the transportation conformity regulation, and others.
The Transportation Equity Network and the Center for Community Change advocate the preparation of this list on a zip-code basis and cited a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) model. They suggest a zip-code based list is easily understandable by members of the public.
Many of those who commented supported an approach which would provide easy public access to information, through a wide means of communication, as noted above. Many stakeholders, including the AMPO and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, opposed a process which would require the development of such a list through the public involvement process of the MPO. However, the American Planning Association, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, the Urban Habitat Program, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, and the National Association to Defend NEPA, among others, supported the dissemination of the list, once developed, through easily accessed public distribution channels.
The NACO, the National Association of Development Organizations, the STPP, the York County Planning Commission (Pennsylvania), the Minnesota DOT, and the Georgia DOT all suggested that where regional planning organizations or councils of government exist, they be considered as an entity that States could work with to facilitate the engagement of elected officials. The NACE, U.S. House of Representative Bob Ney and others supported a two-phased approach: the FHWA and the FTA would provide the flexibility to States and local elected officials to develop a process, and then be provided ample time to document and formalize the process pursuant to the TEA-21. These commenters felt that the flexibility to tailor approaches is needed, but that documentation of the agreed upon approach is also needed to ensure it is implemented on a continuing basis.
The National Association of Towns and Townships suggested more formal processes, like those that are in place in some States, where local governments form development districts or regional development commissions, modeled to some extent after the MPO process. The Land-of-the-Sky Regional Council indicated that this approach is necessary to ensure rural officials have
Commenters, including AASHTO, ITE, Virginia DOT, Texas DOT, Washington DOT, and Kansas DOT supported a clarification which reiterates that transportation plans must be for a 20-year minimum forecast period at the time of plan adoption. Further, the Capital District Transportation Authority, the Regional Transit Agency in Denver, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Agency, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission and others felt that so long as metropolitan TIP updates and amendments (required every two years) are consistent with the metropolitan plan, then, a metropolitan plan update with a new 20-year forecast period should not be required. The STIP amendments and updates (also required every two years) would be governed by the State plan and its unique update schedule.
There are several issues related to the EPA conformity regulation in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 that could be addressed in the revised planning regulations. These issues relate to clarifying requirements and definitions, and could lead to better integration of transportation and air quality planning, a principal objective of the EPA's regulation. These include:
1. Consistency between metropolitan plan update cycle and the point at which a conformity determination is required.
During the outreach process, and in many of the comments to the Options Paper, stakeholders indicated that they interpret the three-year clock for a plan (and required conformity analysis) as starting from the date the MPO approves the metropolitan plan. Agencies, including the Utah DOT, the New York DOT, and others commented that this provides certainty about the exact time frame in which the plan needs to be updated and that this is the preferred approach to clarifying this issue.
In nonattainment and maintenance areas, however, this approach is complicated by required MPO and Federal conformity findings. The AASHTO, and the Virginia DOT supported making the effective date of the plan the date of the Federal conformity finding. The AMPO indicated that it has no certainty as to when the FHWA and the FTA will approve a conformity determination on a metropolitan plan and thus, tying the effective date of the plan to an approval over which they feel they have no control does not, in its view, facilitate the planning process.
2. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
Stakeholders, including the Bicycle Federation of America, the AASHTO, and the AMPO, observed that TCMs, for which Federal funding or approvals are required, must meet the TEA-21 planning requirements (i.e., come from a conforming and financially constrained transportation plan and TIP) and that attempting to circumvent this process, in order to place these measures in SIPs, undermines the transportation planning process.
3. Definitions: TIP Amendments, Conformity Lapse, TIP Extensions.
The FHWA and the FTA have considered clarifying ambiguous terms used in the ISTEA and the EPA's conformity regulation 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. The New Jersey DOT, the AMPO, the Utah DOT, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Wisconsin DOT, and the DRCOG have endorsed the concept of clarification of definitions and terms and want an opportunity to comment on proposed definitions.
There are a number of options for implementing the cross-cutting planning and environmental provisions of the TEA-21. Both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches were suggested to us. The concepts discussed in the proposed rule have been coordinated with other administrations within the DOT and with other Federal agencies.
Some State and local agencies have expressed interest in ways to integrate the public involvement process related to plan and TIP development with public involvement process related to the project development. Several stakeholder groups have noted the difficulties in getting public input on long-range plans and TIPs and the tendency for the public to be more inclined to participate in project-specific opportunities for input. They indicated that this tends to frustrate the public involvement efforts of State and MPO planners to obtain input on long-range transportation plans. During the public outreach process, we sought input in this area, as well as examples of successful techniques and approaches to engage the public on both project-level proposals and long-range plans and TIPs.
Comments from stakeholders were varied. However, there were a substantial number of comments that preferred the following two-fold approach: retaining the public involvement approach included in the planning regulation and modifying the NEPA regulation public involvement requirements to make our procedures the same (based on the FHWA, rather than the FTA, approach). This, they suggest, would allow States and MPOs to design processes that work best given local conditions and needs, yet would simplify the NEPA public involvement process by consolidating the FHWA and the FTA processes into one.
In arguments supporting this option, a considerable number of commenters, including State DOTs in Montana, Washington, New Jersey, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the AASHTO, pointed out distinctions between the type of public involvement that must occur in the planning process and that which is sought in the NEPA process. They point out that these two processes, tailored according to each need, can serve two different purposes and can work without conflict.
There were a number of comments on whether freight interests and representatives of transit users should be represented with voting membership on MPO boards. These commenters, including the NACE, all opposed this idea and observed that putting persons representing particular interests on voting boards with elected officials would dilute the representation of duly elected officials. Yet, the Bicycle Federation of America supported putting representatives of bicyclists and pedestrians on voting boards of MPOs to ensure that they have an opportunity to comment on transportation plans and programs. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Arkansas DOT, and the Minnesota DOT supported a consistent approach to public involvement for both planning activities and the NEPA project
There were a considerable number of commenters, including the AASHTO and many State DOTs, that opposed any suggestion that equity in the distribution of resources should be a factor used to assess whether environmental justice issues are being adequately addressed. These comments ranged from claims that such language, if included in regulation, would contradict the hard-fought TEA-21 provisions on the allocation of transportation funds to claims that such language would result in preempting States and MPOs from selecting the transportation projects and programs in their respective jurisdictions. Deep concern about this option and opposition to this approach was widespread and shared by MPOs and transit agencies who feel that geographic sub-allocation of funding based on demographics is short-sighted, and an inappropriate way to ensure the principles of environmental justice are honored.
Many commenters indicated that they believe the Executive Order 12898, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, as amended, and current NEPA requirements are sufficient to ensure that environmental justice concerns are addressed. The New Jersey DOT noted that benefits that accrue to users of investments should be a consideration in planning, and that this could possibly be measured in terms of mobility.
The Fulton County and Georgia Department of Environment and Community Development focused on the composition of appointed officials on regional authorities. This agency suggested that such authorities or decision making bodies should reflect the demographics of the region. This agency also suggested that all elements of the population affected by a particular decision should be sought out for their input. In addition, this commenter suggested that controversial project decisions should be analyzed to ensure that they conform to the Environmental Justice Presidential Executive Order. Finally, the commenter suggested that all decisions should be analyzed to ensure that no particular geographic sub-area is being over-burdened with adverse conditions resulting from transportation investments.
The U.S. Forest Service pointed out that lumping environmental justice and equity together is, in its view, a mistake. It suggested that the best option for public involvement, especially on issues concerning environmental justice, would be those procedures that incorporate collaboration processes early and often in the process.
One agency made the case that we should consider requiring environmental justice analyses of plans, programs and processes, and of major projects. The commenting agency suggested that we could adopt a set of requirements for recipients of our funding. Requirements would include: (1) Community group or nonprofit organization inclusion as equal and full partners in proposed projects; (2) applications for funding include community input in project development; and (3) external reviewers would make project selection decisions.
Section 1308 of the TEA-21 eliminates the major investment study (MIS), described in 23 CFR 450.318, as a separate requirement and calls for integration of the MIS, as appropriate, into the planning and NEPA analyses required under 23 CFR parts 450 and 771. Proponents supporting this legislative action cited instances where major investment studies were said to duplicate NEPA requirements, were time consuming and costly, and importantly, that results were not usefully integrated into the project development activities under NEPA.
The Options Paper articulated four general concepts (distilled from earlier stakeholder comments) focusing on strengthening the linkage between systems planning and project development. We thought this would facilitate broader consideration of transportation system development although, in some cases, commenters had other views as discussed below.
In all of the options, the intent was to faithfully implement the TEA-21 provision that exempts plans and programs from consideration under NEPA. The MPOs would not be required to conduct NEPA analyses on plans. However, they could more effectively utilize the analyses conducted during planning activities to facilitate compliance with NEPA requirements at a project level. If an MPO, as part of its planning process, chose to conduct a NEPA analysis on a plan, it would be a permissible, voluntary decision. In addition to the four options presented for input, the Options Paper included a number of questions to solicit a better understanding of stakeholders' needs and concerns.
There were a wide range of comments on the elimination of the MIS and on the options presented. The AASHTO felt that we should restrict regulatory language and allow States and MPOs to integrate the principles of the MIS, as appropriate, into planning and programming activities at their discretion. The AMPO suggested that we should allow States the flexibility to do the NEPA analysis in the planning process, as an option, but not as a requirement. In fact, many stakeholders were firmly opposed to any regulatory language integrating NEPA requirements into the planning process.
Most of the commenters supported better linkages between planning and project development and many commenters, including the Minnesota DOT, supported the development of purpose and need during planning studies and sub-regional analysis, but only with the proviso that resource agencies and others allow the use of this information in the NEPA process. On the other hand, the Virginia DOT, for example, was opposed to developing project purpose and need during planning if there is a lack of participation of resource agencies and other parties to the NEPA process who could then require that analysis be redone or revisited during the formal NEPA process. There was near unanimous support for streamlining through reducing duplicative requirements and practices, such as, revisiting issues during project development that were, in commenters views, fully explored during planning.
Many commenters supported options that offer the most flexibility to States and MPOs. The Florida DOT suggested blending the two most flexible options and developing regulatory language that ensures the principles of MIS not already addressed by other Federal regulations and statutes are included in the metropolitan planning and programming requirements. They also suggested that the planning regulation should include requirements for proactive agency coordination and public involvement, collaborative and multi-modal planning analysis of alternatives, and financial capacity analysis of alternatives. The Florida DOT also felt that the States should take the lead on these processes.
The City of Irvine, Texas, suggested that the MIS process served as a good check on the system planning process and was a good way to build consensus and gain public input. Its traffic and
Additionally, and echoing earlier comments, stakeholders felt that the key to success in whatever approach is taken or required in regulation, is that Federal agencies participate early in the process and that they stay involved throughout the development of, and elimination of, alternatives. Consistent with this suggestion, the EPA commented that the only way they would give standing to previously conducted planning analyses during the NEPA project development stage is if there had been full opportunity for consultation in the metropolitan planning process, and if the resource agencies had “confidence that those plans were developed with environmentally desirable alternatives being considered.”
The Options Paper presented two scenarios which would help promote the consideration and evaluation of the cumulative and indirect effects of projects at a regional or large sub-regional scale, rather than on a project-by-project basis. In metropolitan areas, the former MIS requirement provided an opportunity for appropriate consideration of such effects across a sub-regional area where major, multiple transportation actions might be needed. With the elimination of the separate MIS requirement, the most logical venue for the consideration of such effects may be in the systems planning processes that support the development of metropolitan or statewide transportation plans.
One approach to implementing cumulative and secondary impact consideration would require an appropriate evaluation of these effects in a regional or sub-regional analysis, thus obviating the need for repetitious, project-by-project review. Such an approach might also provide an opportunity for more effective and efficient mitigation of cumulative impacts and the enhancement of adversely affected resources. Another possibility is to rely on a systems planning analysis of cumulative and indirect effects. In the absence of a robust planning-level review of these impacts, the project-by-project review as part of each NEPA evaluation would be required.
Some commenters, including the AASHTO and the Bicycle Federation of America, interpreted the first option as a requirement for enhancement projects whenever there are cumulative or indirect effects identified. A large number of commenters opposed this approach, but for two different reasons. The Bicycle Federation of America felt that using transportation enhancement funding to counterbalance the adverse impacts of projects is unacceptable and that such mitigation should be part of the project cost and implementation from the outset. Others, including State DOTs in Utah, New York, and Virginia, believed that a regional or subregional analysis is unrealistic, excessively costly, and of no value unless the study results were accepted by State and Federal environment and resource agencies.
The Oregon DOT observed that the appropriate level to consider cumulative and indirect impacts is at a regional or sub-regional planning level, but not as an analysis
Finally, the Lubbock and Byron College Station MPOs (both from Texas) indicated that cumulative and indirect impacts are, and should be, adequately addressed in consideration of the planning factors and that additional regulatory requirements are unnecessary and redundant.
For ease of reference, a distribution table is provided for the current sections and the proposed sections as follows:
Current § 450.100 would be redesignated as § 1410.100 and a technical correction would be made for a legislative citation.
Current § 450.102 would be redesignated as § 1410.102. The text of this section is unchanged.
Current § 450.104 would be redesignated as § 1410.104. The definition of “conformity lapse” and “transportation control measure” would be added and would have the meaning given it in the EPA conformity regulation provided at 40 CFR 93.101, as follows:
The term “lapse” means that the conformity determination for a transportation plan or TIP has expired, and thus there is no currently conforming transportation plan and TIP.
The term “congestion management system” would replace the previous definition of “management system” and would have the meaning given in the management system rule (23 CFR part 500).
The term “consultation” would have minor wording changes, but no substantive changes.
The word “programming” would be dropped from the definition of “coordination” to reflect the fact that programming is a subset of the planning process. The project development processes reference would be added to reflect the provisions of proposed § 1410.318.
Definitions are proposed for “design concept,” “design scope,” “federally funded non-emergency transportation services,” “financial estimate,” and “freight shipper” for clarification of legislative terminology.
The term “Governor” remains the same.
The terms “illustrative project” and “ITS integration strategy” would be added to reflect new legislative provisions. The term “Indian Tribal Government” is added for clarification.
The terms “Interim Plan” and “Interim Transportation Improvement Program” are added to clarify the basis for advancing exempt and existing and new TCM projects during a conformity lapse. Interim plans and TIPs must be developed in a manner consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134. They must be based on previous planning assumptions and goals; appropriately adjusted for currently available projections for population growth, economic activity and other relevant data. The public must be involved consistent with the regular transportation plan and program development processes. Financial planning and constraint, and, as appropriate, congestion management systems requirements must be satisfied, and interim TIPs must be approved by the MPO and the Governor.”
The term “maintenance area” would be revised to reflect the EPA definition used in the conformity regulation at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
A definition is proposed for “management and operation” to reflect the new legislative policy direction from the TEA-21.
The terms “metropolitan planning area,” “metropolitan planning organization,” “metropolitan transportation plan,” and “nonattainment area” would remain unchanged, except for legislative references.
A definition of “non-metropolitan local official” would be added to reflect the provisions of the TEA-21 regarding consultation between the State and these officials.
The terms “plan update,” “provider of freight services,” and “purpose and need” would be added to provide clarification of terminology.
The definition of “regionally significant” reflects the US EPA conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
The terms “State,” “State implementation plan,” “statewide transportation plan,” and “statewide transportation improvement program” would be unchanged.
A definition for “statewide transportation improvement program extension” would be added for clarification.
The term “transportation improvement program” would be revised slightly. The term “TIP update” would be added to provide information and direction on when a TIP must be updated . Anytime a non-exempt project is added to a TIP, the TIP must be updated. In attainment areas, the TIP must be updated whenever a regionally significant project is added to the TIP.
The definition of “transportation management area” would be unchanged. The terms “twenty year planning horizon, “urbanized area,” and “user of public transit” would be added to clarify legislative terminology.
Current § 450.200 would be redesignated as § 1410.200. The statement of purpose would be amplified by reflecting the declaration of purpose articulated in the TEA-21. This amplification also supports greater consistency of purpose between metropolitan and statewide planning.
Current § 450.202 would be redesignated as § 1410.202. The text would be revised to add “project sponsors” as agencies affected by the provisions of this section.
Current § 450.204 would be redesignated as § 1410.204. This section would remain the same.
Current § 450.206 would be redesignated as § 1410.206.
A new § 1410.206(a)(5) would be added. This section articulates the need for the State to develop and implement a process for demonstrating the consistency of plans and programs with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related legislation. We believe that such processes are already in place and that the clarification of minimum required information and analysis would benefit States and other agencies in meeting the existing requirement in the self-certification statement included in the STIP.
Current § 450.206(b) would be eliminated since it is redundant with § 450.210(a).
Current § 450.208 would be redesignated as § 1410.208. Paragraph (a) would be revised by substituting the seven planning factors identified in the TEA-21 for those previously identified by the ISTEA. All parenthetical amplification has been deleted and the wording is that used by the statute. We plan to issue guidance regarding interpretation and application of the planning factors. We welcome suggestions on exemplary State and MPO procedures already in place or under development, and how those might be replicated in other State or MPO planning processes. We also recognize that it will take some time to develop syntheses of current practices and other tools. However, we will work with States, MPOs, and others to ensure that tools and examples are made available in a timely manner.
We are proposing to revise paragraph (b) to focus on other considerations that the TEA-21 states should be addressed in the planning process. Specifically, the concerns of non-metropolitan local officials and Indian Tribal Governments and Federal land managing agencies are spelled out as a source of concerns that shall be considered.
Current § 450.210 would be redesignated as § 1410.210. Reflecting the simplification of language provided by the change in planning factors, paragraph (a) would be revised to focus on required planning coordination efforts. This general approach would eliminate the need to spell out in detail all of the specific coordination efforts previously articulated. We believe that the substance of coordination and the process overall remain intact even though the language is vastly simplified. References to the air quality planning process in § 1410.210(b) reflect the
Current § 450.212 would be redesignated as § 1410.212. Overall, current § 450.212 (public involvement) would be broadened to focus on all facets of participation in the statewide planning process. For example, the newly articulated provisions regarding consultation with non-metropolitan officials would be added to this section. In addition, the paragraphs would be redesignated.
Current §§ 450.212(a) through (f) would become § 1410.212(b) and be revised slightly to reflect increased emphasis for public involvement by minorities and low-income populations. The listing of interested parties to be afforded an opportunity to comment is revised to reflect the addition of transit users and freight service providers in statute. This listing reflects the wording of the statute. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the phrase “and other interested parties” reflects the intent of Congress to ensure that all citizens and groups are afforded an opportunity to participate. Comments are solicited as to whether there is a need to further elaborate the listing so as to demonstrate that the specific groups do not constitute an exclusive list of participants. A new § 1410.212(d) would be added to encourage the participation of state air quality and other agencies in the transportation planning process. The existing § 450.212(g) would become § 1410.212(e).
Section 1410.212(b)(2)(vii) makes provision for a periodic evaluation of its public involvement procedures by the State. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the assessment of such processes on a routine basis ensures their effectiveness and enhances continued improvement. The FHWA and the FTA also believe that the effectiveness of public involvement processes can be strengthened through the voluntary development of criteria on which to assess performance by States and MPOs. Where such criteria have been developed by the planning partners, the FHWA and the FTA will consider them in their certification reviews and planning findings, in addition to the generally applicable requirements for public involvement processes under § 1410.212(b)(2) and § 1410.316(b).
A new § 1410.212(c) focusing on participation by Federal agencies and Indian Tribal Governments would be added to support early involvement by these agencies and governments. Such involvement will facilitate streamlining of environmental decisions and ensure adequate consideration of key interests and viewpoints. The proposed wording for the involvement of Indian Tribal Governments reflects current deliberations within the Executive Branch regarding ways to more fully inform and engage Indian Tribal Governments in Federal decision making processes.
Current § 450.214 would be redesignated as § 1410.214. Two new sections would be added to reflect legislative changes. Proposed § 1410.214(a)(3) would reflect the intelligent transportation system consistency requirement provided under section 5206(e) of the TEA-21. A separate rulemaking process will address the overall policy and procedures for architecture consistency. The wording reflects that portion of the consistency process that would be started in the statewide planning process for non-metropolitan area projects. We are interested in comments and observations regarding the feasibility of this process. In our view, the basic structure would reflect the activities normally conducted during transportation plan development. Proposed minor information collection additions to reflect utilization of electronic information sharing do not appear to be a major burden addition for planning.
In addition, proposed § 1410.214(d) would implement a provision, added by TEA-21, for an optional financial plan for statewide transportation plans. The TEA-21 did not impose a new requirement on the States. Rather, it offers up the option of a financial plan if decided upon by the statewide planning process participants. This section would spell out how this option would be approached through a statewide planning process.
Current § 450.216 would be redesignated as § 1410.216. The provisions of former § 450.216(a)(1) through (a)(9) would be redesignated and revised as § 1410.216(c) providing detailed information on the STIP. A new § 1410.216(b) would spell out the need to involve certain interests in the development of the STIP. The parties identified are the same as those identified for the development of the plan.
Regarding the detailed information requested for projects identified in a STIP in § 450.216(c), a new element (§ 1410.216(c)(8)) regarding ITS projects funded with highway trust funds would be added. This section reiterates the earlier planning level discussion and would direct that projects meeting the definition in § 1410.322(b)(11) would be included in a regional architecture as indicated in the rulemaking on ITS architecture consistency.
The new wording proposed in § 1410.216(f) articulates the legislative provision of an optional financial plan for STIPs.
A new § 1410.218 would address an optional approach to linking statewide planning and project development processes in non-metropolitan areas. It mirrors proposed § 1410.318 which would apply to the metropolitan planning process. The intent of this section is to provide States with an option to more effectively rely on planning processes as a foundation for subsequent environmental and other project level analyses. Nothing in this section would mandate that a State adopt the option provided. If a State chose to take advantage of the option, the language lays out a framework to support the State's actions. This section also would make clear that project level actions shall be consistent with the State plan and program (see proposed § 1410.218(e)). For further information, please see the preamble section related to metropolitan planning, proposed § 1410.318.
The content of the current § 450.218 would be moved here with changes made to the references and the section heading.
Current § 450.220 would be redesignated as § 1410.222. Current § 450.220(a)(2) would be revised slightly. Proposed § 1410.222(a)(3) through (a)(5) would articulate the existing legislative and regulatory authorities. Subsequent paragraphs would be redesignated and remain
We are proposing to modify existing § 450.220(b) slightly to indicate the relationship of the planning finding to self-certifications by the State. In addition, current language provided at § 450.220(c) would be redesignated and combined with a new § 1410.222(b) to clarify the relationship of findings with possible Federal actions.
Proposed § 1410.222(c) that details the approval period for a STIP would modify the text of current § 450.220(d). STIP extensions (and by their inclusion, TIP extensions) would be limited to 180 days. Further, no STIP extension would be granted in nonattainment and maintenance areas. We believe that this policy eliminates substantial confusion regarding application of the Clean Air Act (CAA) conformity provisions in nonattainment and maintenance areas. We also believe that the focus should be on ensuring regular STIP updates, rather than finding a way to maintain funding flows that may conflict with the provisions of the CAA. The overall limit on extensions serves the same general purpose for attainment areas of ensuring that updates are accomplished rather than continuing to rely on out of date documents.
Current § 450.222 would be redesignated as § 1410.224 and the references to funding categories updated. Generally, however, it would remain unchanged. Proposed new paragraph (e) would provide the option for expedited procedures where agreed to by the planning participants. The current topic of this section (§ 450.224 phase-in requirements) would be eliminated.
This section simply proposes to restate the provisions of the TEA-21 which direct that decisions by the Secretary regarding plans and programs are not Federal actions subject to the provisions of the NEPA.
Current § 450.300 would be redesignated as § 1410.300. This statement would remain essentially unchanged. The exceptions are a minor wording change for clarity of Federal expectations with regard to plan content and the addition of the word “management” to reflect the revised declaration of policy in 23 U.S.C. 134(a) as revised by the TEA-21.
Current § 450.302 would be redesignated as § 1410.302. The principal change would be to add organizations charged with “project development” in metropolitan areas to the affected organizations. This would reflect the general emphasis of the revised rule on more efficiently and effectively linking planning and project development as a means to streamlining decision making and towards ensuring that projects are based on the planning process. The statutory authorizing language reference would be added also.
Current § 450.304 would be redesignated as § 1410.304. This section would remain unchanged with the exception of referencing definitions in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
Current § 450.306 would be redesignated as § 1410.306. Minor changes are proposed for existing § 450.306(a) to provide clarity regarding the designation of multiple MPOs serving a single metropolitan area. The wording would more clearly emphasize a preference for not designating more than one MPO in metropolitan areas. We believe that this is consistent with the intent of legislative language changes and the principles of comprehensive transportation planning for metropolitan areas.
Current §§ 450.306(b) and (c) would remain unchanged. Current § 450.306(d) and (g) would be combined and redesignated as § 1410.306(f), § 450.306(e) would be redesignated as § 1410.306(d) and § 450.306(f) would be redesignated as § 1410.306(e). Editing for clarity of intent would simplify the language. Current § 450.306(e) would be redesignated as § 1410.306(d). Sections 450.306(h) through (k) would be redesignated as §§ 1410.306 (g) through (j), respectively, and revised.
Current § 450.308 would be redesignated as § 1410.308. Revisions made by the TEA-21 to 23 U.S.C. 134 require the modification of existing § 450.308, which also would be edited for clarification of language. Boundaries in effect as of June 9, 1998, the date of presidential signature for the TEA-21, would remain in effect unless modified by the policy board of the MPO in cooperation with the Governor. The provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134, as modified by the ISTEA, required planning area boundaries to be extended to the limits of the nonattainment area where that area was larger than the transportation planning area.
New MPOs designated after June 9, 1998, would have to take into account the existence of non-attainment and maintenance areas and reflect them as agreed to by the Governor and local officials in the proposed metropolitan planning area boundaries.
In either case, the existing MPO or new MPO, non-attainment and maintenance areas left outside the metropolitan planning areas would have to be addressed in an agreement between the State and the MPO as proposed at paragraph § 1410.310(f).
The option of extending the metropolitan planning area boundary to the limits of the metropolitan statistical area would be retained as provided in the statute. This continuation and the changes discussed in the preceding paragraphs are captured in proposed revisions included in § 1410.308(a).
The wording of current § 450.308(b) would remain unchanged. The provisions of current § 450.308(c) would be slightly modified for clarification. No changes are proposed for § 450.308(d).
A new § 1410.308(e) proposes to address the expenditure of Surface Transportation Program funds attributable to a Transportation Management Area (TMA). The intent of the section is to more clearly state, what has been the FHWA and the FTA policy since 1992, that these funds cannot be expended outside the boundaries of the metropolitan area. They may be expended anywhere inside the metropolitan area including areas outside the urbanized area.
Current § 450.310 would be redesignated as § 1410.310. Current § 450.310(a) would be retained in its current form except for the elimination of a reference to corridor and subarea studies. A new proposed § 1410.310(b) would state the overall relationship between planning and project development activities. This section would support the option for conducting project development activities as planning activities under the general relationship between
Current § 450.310(c) would be redesignated as § 1410.310(c) and the text would remain unchanged except for minor wording revisions for clarification. Section 450.310(d) would be redesignated as § 1410.310(h) and revised for clarity. Current § 450.310(e) would be revised by dropping the reference to a definition of a prospectus in § 450.104. A definition is not required since the nature of prospectus is well established in practice as a statement of ongoing planning activities that continue from year-to-year as a foundation for producing transportation plans and programs.
The current § 450.310(f) would be redesignated as § 1410.310(e) and modified slightly by a wording change to support the revisions to the air quality and transportation planning area boundary relationship. The change is intended to suggest that actions that would leave portions of nonattainment and maintenance areas outside a metropolitan transportation planning area, but contiguous to such an area, should be addressed in consultation with the FHWA, the FTA, and the EPA. The decision to leave such areas outside a metropolitan planning area is the responsibility of the Governor and the MPO acting cooperatively.
A proposed new § 1410.310(g) has been added to reflect the impact of section 5206(e) of the TEA-21. The proposed section requires an agreement among agencies planning and implementing ITS projects and is intended to ensure that the planning and operating agencies specifically agree on an approach to integrated ITS implementation consistent with the options provided in the National ITS Architecture. This provision would direct that this relationship should be covered by agreement within the metropolitan planning area and addresses the policy and operational issues affecting ITS implementation. Where current agreements do not already address these relationships, they would be modified to reflect the provisions of this section. Where possible, existing agreements, per the provisions of § 1410.310(i), would be modified to incorporate the ITS integration strategy required under proposed § 1410.322(b)(11).
A new proposed § 1410.310(h) would permit a single agreement for all activities under § 1410.310 where agreed to by the participants. The wording in current § 450.310(h) remains unchanged from its current text and would be included in a redesignated § 1410.310(i).
Current § 450.312 would be redesignated as § 1410.312. Existing § 450.312(a) would be redesignated as § 1410.312(a) and modified in several places to reflect wording changes in the subsequent provisions of §§ 1410.314 through 1410.322. A phrase would be made to reflect international border planning with Canada and Mexico.
The text of current § 450.312(b) would be redesignated as § 1410.312(b) and remain unchanged.
The organization of current § 450.312(c) and some of the previous content would be modified and redesignated as § 1410.312(c). The content modifications are intended to clarify how MPO transportation planning activities and planning products are related to air quality planning activities and products. Under 42 U.S.C. 7504, MPOs and State transportation planning organizations are expected to have a formal role in air quality planning. At another level, the transportation and air quality planning processes would work more efficiently if the responsible agencies were more actively engaged in each other's processes. Hence, the proposed rule would more explicitly direct MPOs to participate in air quality planning activities. We would expect that the air quality planning agencies, under the U.S. EPA's conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93), would be actively engaged in the transportation planning process. The development of transportation control measures is specifically revised to clarify that new TCMs proposed for funding with FHWA and/or FTA transportation funds or requiring an FHWA or FTA approval can occur during a conformity lapse, if new TCMs are included in an interim plan and interim TIP that satisfy the provisions of this part and are approved into a SIP with identified emission reduction benefits (specified but not necessarily credited in the applicable SIP). The proposals herein implement and clarify the planning regulations consistent with the “National Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Transportation and the US Environmental Protection Agency,” which was signed on April 19, 2000. This memorandum of understanding outlines procedures for advancing new TCMs during a conformity lapse.
Current § 450.312(d) would be redesignated as § 1410.312(d) and remain unchanged.
Minor wording changes would be made to current § 450.312(e) [proposed § 1410.312(e)] to clarify required coordination in circumstances where more than one MPO is involved in transportation planning for a contiguous metropolitan area, including multi-state areas.
Proposed § 1410.312(f) (current § 450.312(f)) would be revised for text clarity. Proposed § 1410.312(g) (current § 450.312(g)) would be revised to remove a specific reference to cooperative development of the congestion management system (CMS) since it is incorporated in the management system regulation provided at 23 CFR part 500.
Current § 450.312(h) is redesignated as § 1410.312(h) and revised. Proposed § 1410.312(i) (current § 450.312(i)) would be revised by replacing the words “involved appropriately” with “consulted” to more accurately reflect the statutory intention.
A new § 1410.312(j) is proposed to reflect the legislative changes of the TEA-21 which added several new discretionary grant programs. This section asserts that the projects (other than planning and research activities) funded through these programs must be addressed through the transportation planning process and included, as appropriate, in transportation plans and programs. Planning and research activities funded under the referenced programs are addressed in the Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWP) for each metropolitan planning area.
Current § 450.314(a) would be redesignated as § 1410.314(a). The provisions of this overall section remain largely unchanged except for wording revisions for clarity or to reflect modifications in other sections, e.g., elimination of the MIS proposed under § 1410.318. One change to § 450.314(a) proposes to drop the reference to TMAs. This is intended to suggest that all MPOs have a responsibility to meet the requirements of this section. It does not prevent a smaller, attainment area MPO from proposing a prospectus or a simplified work program. Paragraph (c) of current § 450.314 would be revised and redesignated as § 1410.314(c). A new paragraph (d) will be added as § 1410.314(d).
Current § 450.316 would be redesignated as § 1410.316. Overall this section has extensive proposed revisions for several reasons. The
The US EPA has suggested that the FTA and the FHWA amplify and elaborate the detail in the regulation regarding the meaning of the planning factors. The agencies have kept the language as stipulated in the statute. However, the agencies believe that substantial benefits can be realized by States and MPOs in applying the planning factors, under §§ 1410.214 and 1410.316(a), aggressively, most notably in supporting the provisions of § 450.318 below. The planning factors can serve as a key focal point for developing plans and programs and MPOs and States may develop specific rationales to guide their utilization in the plan development process. Indeed, where States and MPOs choose to develop their own performance criteria to monitor the results of planning, they may be well served by utilizing the planning factors as a base for those criteria. The FTA and the FHWA will support efforts by States and MPOs to utilize such criteria by addressing them in Federal reviews and assessments. In addition, the agencies will seek to develop specific examples of how the planning factors can support effective plan development and environmental streamlining. Streamlining, as an activity to reduce project level burden and delay, could be more readily achieved if the planning process provides an early consideration of the planning factors.
The FHWA and the FTA welcome suggestions on exemplary State and MPO procedures or data collection efforts already in place or under development and how those might be replicated in other State or MPO planning processes. We are interested also in specialized training efforts, e.g., safety, that may have been developed or needed by States and MPOs. We also recognize that it will take some time to develop syntheses of current practices and other tools. However, it is our intent to work with States, MPOs, and others to ensure that tools and examples are made available in a timely manner.
The public involvement provisions would be modified for clarity and would reflect the provisions of Presidential Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice and implementing DOT and FHWA orders. Similar changes have been made regarding references to compliance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The organization of § 450.316 would be modified slightly to reflect these changes and to provide clarity in understanding them.
The listing of interested parties to be afforded an opportunity to comment is revised to reflect the addition of transit users and freight service providers in statute. This listing reflects the wording of the statute. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the phrase “and other interested parties” reflects the intent of Congress to ensure that all citizens and groups are afforded an opportunity to participate. Comments are solicited as to whether there is a need to further elaborate the listing so as to demonstrate that the specific groups do not constitute an exclusive list of participants.
Section 1410.316(b)(9) makes provision for a periodic evaluation of its public involvement procedures by the State. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the assessment of such processes on a routine basis ensures their effectiveness and enhances continued improvement. The FHWA and the FTA also believe that the effectiveness of public involvement processes can be strengthened through the voluntary development of criteria on which to assess performance by States and MPOs. Where such criteria have been developed by the planning partners, the FHWA and the FTA will consider them in their certification reviews and planning findings.
Relatively small scale modifications to the public involvement provisions are proposed as follows: (1) The provision of timely information will be modified to encourage engagement of the public during the early stages of plan and TIP development; (2) demonstration of timely response to comments received would be revised to highlight response to input from minority and low-income populations; and (3) periodic MPO evaluations of public involvement effectiveness would now include an emphasis on the success obtained in engaging minority and low-income populations.
Current § 450.316(b)(2) is proposed to be redesignated as § 1410.316(c). Additional attention is drawn to the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and implementing DOT and FHWA orders. Specifically, data necessary for the purposes of conducting planning analyses for plan development are identified as contributors to the demonstration of compliance with the Executive Order. We are required to assure compliance with the Executive Order and will rely on the data identified under this section for that purpose. In addition, the statutory and regulatory requirements identified in this section apply to State DOTs, MPOs, and transit operators. Consequently, additional data and analyses are proposed as a basis for demonstrating that plans and resulting programs will be consistent with the referenced statutory requirements. Additional guidance will be issued to refine and amplify the basic framework established by these provisions. We believe, however, that much of the proposed data specification was previously required for assertions of compliance with Title VI and related statutory authorities and, hence, should not require a major new data collection effort.
In addition to the revised requirements of this section, the FHWA and the FTA continue to encourage attention to the selection of members of boards and committees that represent the demographic profile of the metropolitan planning area served. The ability to meet the needs of the community is enhanced by efforts designed to provide voice to as many segments of its membership as possible. The FHWA and the FTA solicit comments regarding additional strategies that may be effective in serving the interests of inclusiveness in transportation decision making.
Current §§ 450.316(b)(3) through 450.316(b)(5) would be redesignated as § 1410.316(d) through (f). Current § 450.316(c) would be redesignated as § 1410.316(g) and revised for clarity. Current § 450.316(d) is proposed to be redesignated as § 1410.316(h).
Proposed § 1410.316(i) is offered to encourage the coordination of federally funded non-emergency transportation services per the requirements of section 1203(d)(4) of the TEA-21. The section simply restates the legislative language.
The TEA-21 eliminates the major investment study (MIS) as a separate requirement as set forth in the planning regulations and calls for integration of the requirement, as appropriate, into the planning and NEPA analyses required under proposed 23 CFR parts 1410 and 1420. Accordingly, current § 450.318
Section 1308 of the TEA-21 directs the US DOT Secretary to eliminate the separate MIS and its elements and integrate the remaining aspects of the MIS into the planning and NEPA regulations. The FHWA and FTA have attempted to do this by focusing on the fundamental basics of the MIS process, i.e., the cooperative relationship of planning and project development agencies, the early engagement of permit and resource agencies, flexible definition of the need to do analyses as decided by the participants and an appropriate level of public involvement. The MIS process did not require a specific methodology for studying alternatives, a specific set of alternatives to study, a particular format for reports, a specific public involvement or analytical process, or a specific set of projects to which the MIS applied. The US EPA has specifically suggested that the MIS process required and should require the use of cost benefit, costs effectiveness analysis and/or other related analytical techniques. The logic of this proposal is that early, effective consideration of social, environmental and economic considerations in planning analyses should permit more expedited consideration of these same issues, at a more micro level of detail, for subsequent NEPA analyses. By linking the planning and project development processes more effectively, the participants can reduce time required, analytical redundancy and process requirements by utilizing previously conducted work as a basis for subsequent analyses and efforts. It is the belief of the FTA and the FHWA that an aggressive utilization of the options provided here can strengthen the planning process and streamline the project development process substantially. The agencies are specifically interested in comments that address the extent to which the remaining aspects of the MIS process have been included in this proposal and suggestions for encouraging States and MPOs to more effectively take advantage of the options provided herein.
The overall structure of the relationship emphasizes alternatives for planning and sponsor agencies to integrate decision processes to take advantage of potential streamlining opportunities and for early consultation among the MPOs, State DOTs, and transit operators. The planning process is charged with providing an initial statement of purpose and need for proposed transportation improvements, identifying and evaluating alternatives (including, but not limited to, design concept and scope) and selecting an alternative and including it in the plan. This statement would not necessarily lead to a determination of purpose and need on a project-by-project basis for transportation improvements normally grouped (not specified individually) in a plan. An alternative could be a programmatic statement of purpose and need that identifies the basis for investing resources in a given transportation area such as safety or pavement resurfacing.
The consideration of alternatives and other planning level analyses done in support of plan development do not eliminate the need for considering all reasonable alternatives during the NEPA process. However, to the extent that the planning participants anticipate the required consideration of all reasonable alternatives in the planning process, they will significantly enhance, in our view, the efficiency of the NEPA process. Well documented, thorough planning analyses should permit the NEPA process to accept this information as a sound basis for reducing the alternatives considered and the detail required for others in the NEPA process. Provision also is made for policy preferences and guidance from planning policy bodies to be included on the record for consideration in subsequent decision steps.
Examples of issues that might be covered in the planning level consideration of alternatives include: the consideration of alternatives that in the past have been rejected for not fully meeting traditional concepts of purpose and need; more broadly defined purpose and need statements during the planning stage so that a full range of modal alternatives are considered; an alternatives analysis that examines “no-build” alternatives that use transportation demand strategies; and, flexibility to encourage the selection of alternatives which may have lower than originally desired levels of transportation service if there are cost, time, and impact savings. The FHWA and the FTA will work with the US EPA on guidance and training in this regard.
A number of alternative sources of information are identified as a basis for the development of purpose and need, a planning level analysis of alternatives (primarily at the level of concept and scope) and specification of a project for inclusion in the transportation plan. These information sources are utilized at the discretion of participating agencies (MPO, State DOT, and transit agency) acting jointly. The underlying logic of the proposal is that if the options to document thoroughly and analyze fully are chosen, this effort will lead to expedited analytical efforts in subsequent NEPA analyses. Less robust analytical and documentation efforts would force elaboration and analysis of alternatives during the NEPA process.
The utilization of planning analyses as a basis for project development actions is explained. In particular the regulatory language specifies that the results of planning analyses shall serve as input to the environmental process under proposed 23 CFR part 1420 (current part 771), and other project level actions. Proposed § 1410.318(c) references the contents of proposed § 1420.201 to provide a frame of reference to data and analytical expectations in subsequent NEPA process steps,
The ability to streamline the planning and environmental relationship is dependent, in part, on appropriate decisions made by the planning participants. They can choose to develop a rigorous basis for establishing transportation purpose and need, identifying alternatives for evaluation, and assessing these alternatives through the planning process. Alternatively, they can choose to apply minimal analytical techniques. At the time the NEPA analyses are undertaken for project development, the agencies participating in that process will review the materials provided by the planning process. Minimal analyses in planning will have to be supplemented and elaborated to satisfy the needs of the NEPA process. More robust planning analyses should allow the NEPA process to reduce the need for revisiting and re-evaluating planning level studies and instead proceed to focus on project level considerations of location and design. Consequently, the consideration of alternatives should be more quickly and efficiently accomplished.
A similar option exists with regard to documentation of planning results. A set of planning activities to be documented to facilitate this linkage is specified in § 1410.318(a)(2). The option to document is a discretionary option of the planning participants in cooperation with appropriate project sponsors. The focus is not on the details of documents but rather on the act of documenting the results of analyses and studies. Robust analyses coupled with sound documentation will permit more effective linkage and utilization of
The early involvement of Federal and State environmental and permit agencies is encouraged under proposed § 1410.318(d) to facilitate linking planning and environmental processes. The involvement of the FTA is required where planning studies are proposed to satisfy requirements of the Major Capital Investment Program administered by the FTA under 49 CFR part 611. The TEA-21 directive that Federal decisions on plans and programs are not considered a Federal action for NEPA purposes is restated in proposed § 1410.318(f) (the FHWA and the FTA do not approve plans but they do approve the State TIP which is not subject to NEPA). Finally, the basis for Federal project actions in plans and TIPs is specifically stated. The intent of this latter provision, in proposed § 1410.318(g), is to clearly substantiate the need for projects to be in plans before Federal actions can be taken on them. A particular point is made that project actions and the appropriate phase of a project must be in a plan and TIP before project actions can be taken.
Current § 450.320 would be redesignated as § 1410.320 and would be revised to reflect the impact of the issuance of the Management System rule (23 CFR part 500) and the National Highway System Act of 1995, Public Law 104-59, 109 Stat. 568. The latter made management systems optional, except for the congestion management system in transportation management areas (TMA). Hence, the proposed language focuses on the continuing provisions of the congestion management system in TMAs, including the limitation on single occupant vehicle capacity increases which remains unchanged under the TEA-21. With the exception of current § 450.320(a) which would be removed, the remainder of the overall section is generally unchanged.
One option considered, but not included in this proposal, is to revise 23 CFR part 500 by transferring the provisions dealing with the congestion management system to the metropolitan planning rule. The FHWA and the FTA would welcome comments on this idea with regard to its utility and appropriateness.
Current § 450.322 would be redesignated as § 1410.322. Current § 450.322(a) would be modified by adding a discussion of data assumptions for plan updates. Specifically, the language would clarify what must be considered in preparing a plan update, as a minimum. It also would reaffirm that the MPO must approve the content of a new plan or reaffirm existing plan content in conducting an update. We have chosen to provide this clarification in response to requests from stakeholders and to emphasize that a plan is a critical document. Piecemeal revisions that incrementally revise plans do not constitute an appropriate, accurate or meaningful basis for plan development, implementation, and/or subsequent decision making.
A proposed minor revision would be made to § 450.322(b)(2) to reflect the emphasis on management and operation of the transportation system.
Current §§ 450.322(b)(3) through (b)(6) would remain unchanged with the exception of minor edits for clarity. Current § 450.322(b)(7) would be revised to reflect the elimination of the MIS and redesignated as § 1410.322(b)(7). Current § 450.322(b)(8) would be removed. Current §§ 450.322(b)(9) and (10) would be redesignated as §§ 1410.322(b)(8) and (9), respectively.
Current § 450.322(b)(11) would be redesignated as § 1410.322(b)(10) and remain generally unchanged except for the addition of the reference to “illustrative projects.” Illustrative projects have no standing for transportation or air quality purposes until such time as a financing source has been identified and they have been formally amended into the plan by action of the MPO. At that point they could be added to a TIP as a project to be advanced. We expect that the MPO would coordinate its actions with the State DOT and transit operator and vice versa. Once formally added to a plan and TIP, these projects may be included in regional conformity findings, advanced, and subject to appropriate project level actions by the FHWA and the FTA.
The remainder of § 450.322(b)(10) would remain generally unchanged since the TEA-21 either did not change key provisions or reenforced previous provisions required through regulation (
A new § 1410.322(b)(11) proposes to focus on intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and the National ITS Architecture. As provided in section 5206(e) of TEA-21, we have issued interim guidance on compliance with this new legislative requirement. This proposed wording is intended to be an integral element of the proposed regulatory issuance on compliance with this requirement. A companion NPRM issuance will be made for project development and national policy on consistency with the National ITS Architecture. It will support planning as the initial stage at which this consistency must begin. We are issuing the planning component through this NPRM and solicit comments on this proposal.
The existing wording of § 450.322(c) would be redesignated as § 1410.322(c) and would be modified to add users of public transit and freight shippers as directed by the TEA-21. A minor modification would be made to § 450.322(d) (proposed § 1410.322(d)) to clarify that if either the MPO or we fail to make a conformity determination, the Governor or the Governor's designee must be notified.
A new § 1410.322(e) would refine the operating approach to plan changes and updates. The question of a 20-year horizon has received substantial discussion as indicated previously. As part of the clarification of the meaning of the term “20-year horizon,” we are proposing that a plan is valid for transportation purposes if it has a twenty year horizon at the time of adoption. If no major changes are made to the plan,
The current requirement of § 450.322(e) that new plans and plan updates be provided to us would be included in proposed § 1410.322(f).
A new § 1410.322(g) would be added to authorize utilization of an interim plan during an anticipated conformity lapse. It is the intent of this section to permit funding of existing exempt, transportation control measures (TCMs) and other projects that can advance under a conformity lapse in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. New TCMs under this provision can only be approved or funded during a conformity lapse when they have been included in an approved SIP with identified emission reduction benefits (but not necessarily credited in the applicable SIP). Inclusion in the SIP would have to occur before such TCMs can be advanced into completion of the NEPA process, design, right of way acquisition and/or construction). An interim plan may be used during a conformity lapse to advance projects that can proceed according to 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, including existing TCMs and existing and new exempt projects. It is the expectation of the US DOT that this provision would be utilized for new TCM projects where a conformity lapse would persist for six months or longer. An interim plan may be used for periods of less than six months to advance existing TCM and existing and new exempt projects.
Existing §§ 450.324(a) through (e) would have minor modifications to the text and be redesignated as §§ 1410.324(a) through (e). Please note, however, that an addition to proposed § 1410.324(b) would reflect the changes in proposed § 1410.222(c) to limit STIP/TIP extensions to 180 days in attainment areas. The prohibition against STIP/TIP extensions in nonattainment and maintenance areas is present also in proposed § 1410.324(b). Additionally, the current wording reflects TEA-21's confirmation of the previous regulatory provisions; most notably, the cooperative estimate of available funds. As indicated above, the estimation process would be achieved through locally identified processes.
In existing § 450.324 (proposed § 1410.324), proposed paragraph (f)(1) would be unmodified. Paragraph (f)(2) would be modified to reflect changes in funding categories (
In current § 450.324(f)(3) (redesignated as § 1410.324(f)(3)), “approval” would be changed to “action” to reflect a broader concept regarding the range of our activities taken with regard to projects,
Current §§ 450.324(f)(4) and (f)(5) would be modified and redesignated as §§ 1410.324(f)(5) and (f)(6), respectively. The changes are intended to clarify that all regionally significant projects in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas, whether funded federally or otherwise, would be included in the metropolitan TIP. This allows full consideration of all projects in a regional conformity determination and ensures that the provisions of the CAA are met.
The three year conformity period for a TIP would start from the date of the conformity determination by the FHWA and the FTA. It is our expectation that the time period from the point of a Federal conformity determination on the TIP and its inclusion by the Governor's action in the STIP and the subsequent gubernatorial approval of the STIP and planning finding and STIP approval by the FHWA and the FTA would be monitored to ensure efficient and expeditious processing by all parties.
With the exception of proposed minor changes for clarification regarding fiscal constraint, § 450.324(g) (proposed § 1410.324(g)) would be unchanged. The changes would reiterate the need for specification of funding sources for projects included in a TIP. The wording of existing § 450.324(h) (proposed § 1410.324(h)) would be unchanged. The content of § 450.324(i) (proposed § 1410.324(i)) would be modified to indicate that only regionally significant projects funded under Chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. need be specifically identified in a TIP. These projects are typically “Federal Lands” projects,
Existing § 450.324(n) (proposed § 1410.324(n)) would be modified to include an indication that projects are to be included on the TIP until fully authorized. A new § 1410.324(n)(5) is proposed to require that the TIP shall serve as the basis for an annual listing of projects, supplemented as appropriate, to ensure adequate public information regarding projects funded with Federal monies. Both changes are geared at ensuring greater clarity as to what projects must be included on a TIP.
The second change to proposed § 1410.324(n) serves another purpose—encouraging greater public knowledge regarding which projects have been advanced. In this case, we are opting to allow the planning participants the flexibility to design a process to comply with the legislative directive provided in section 134(h)(7)(B) of title 23 U.S.C. for an annual listing of projects. While the statute focuses on the MPO, we believe that the State DOT, transit operator, and the MPO operating jointly can produce the required information.
The MPO, in cooperation with its planning partners would, under this proposal, utilize the TIP as the basis for the annual listing. Each year the participating agencies would identify the projects that advanced (or did not) and publish the “list” jointly, in a fashion consistent with the public involvement provisions for the metropolitan area. Changes to the TIP would be acknowledged and reflected in modifications to the annual listing as appropriate.
Current § 450.324(o) would be redesignated as § 1410.324(o) with no other changes.
In general, we believe that it may be possible to further streamline the information and procedural requirements expected of TIPs, particularly with regard to financial information. We would be interested in any possible information reduction options that may be possible while maintaining the principles and practices of sound public involvement and fiscal constraint.
A new § 1410.324(p) would be added to authorize utilization of an interim TIP during an anticipated conformity lapse. It is the intent of this section to permit funding of existing exempt, transportation control measures (TCMs) and other projects that can advance under a conformity lapse in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. New TCMs under this provision can only be approved or funded when they have been included in an approved SIP with identified emission reduction benefits (but not necessarily credited in the
Current § 450.326 would be redesignated as § 1410.326. The only change to this section would be to clarify when a new conformity determination is necessary. The addition of non-exempt projects, or replacement of an existing TIP by a new TIP, requires a new conformity determination. Similarly, moving a project or a phase of a project from year four, five, or later of a TIP to the first three years would be an amendment and require a new conformity determination. We believe that frequent modification of TIPs through the addition of non-exempt projects is inconsistent with the principles of fiscal constraint and public involvement. Hence, we intend to make it clear that a new conformity determination is necessary unless the changes to TIPs are minor, i.e., addition or deletion of exempt projects.
Current § 450.328 would be redesignated as § 1410.328. The text would remain unchanged.
Current § 450.330 would be redesignated as § 1410.330. The provisions of current §§ 450.330(a) and (b) would be redesignated as §§ 1410.330(a) and (b). There would be very minor wording changes for clarification or technical corrections. A new § 1410.330(c) would be added to address the addition of “illustrative projects” to TIPs. This paragraph makes it clear that no Federal action may be taken on these projects until they become formally included in the TIP as indicated previously.
Consistent with the overall purposes of the planning process and the need for Federal actions on planning processes and products as appropriate as described in this proposed regulation, project funding is contingent on the existence of a plan and TIP. If a plan and TIP are not updated as required herein, new funding actions cannot be taken.
Current § 450.332 would be redesignated as § 1410.332. Current §§ 450.332(a), (b) and (c) would be redesignated as §§ 1410.332((b), (c) and (a), respectively, with only citation corrections to the text. Proposed §§ 1410.332(d) and (e) (current §§ 450.332(d) and (e), respectively) would include citation corrections and in paragraph (e) the word “will” would become “shall” to reflect the force of law under the CAA. Consistent with previous program practice by the FHWA and the FTA, selecting a project for advancement from year two or three of a TIP does not require a TIP amendment.
Current § 450.334 would be redesignated as § 1410.334. Current § 450.334(a) would have three new paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(8) under this proposal. These paragraphs add references to compliance with additional Federal statutes but do not represent new compliance requirements. These requirements previously existed and the regulations would be revised to point out their existence.
Paragraph (d) would be revised to clarify the basis for Federal certification actions in relation to Federal findings during the review process. The wording of current paragraph (e) would be the same as the sanctions specified in paragraph (f). Current paragraph (g) would be eliminated to reflect changes made by the TEA-21 (related to the failure to remain certified for two years after October 1994). A new proposed § 1410.334(g) would focus on the new statutory requirement for public involvement during a certification review. We previously required this through administrative directive. Hence, there would be no change in practice, other than to further encourage broad public outreach as part of certification reviews.
No phase-in period for any requirements under the TEA-21 is proposed. Current § 450.336 would be removed. Comments on the desirability of such requirements and the specific areas for which they are warranted are welcome.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material.
We have determined that this rulemaking is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures because of substantial State, local government, congressional, and public interest. These interests involve receipt of Federal financial support for transportation investments, appropriate compliance with statutory requirements, and balancing of transportation mobility and environmental goals. This rulemaking is a revision to an existing regulation for which the costs of compliance have previously been addressed. The modifications proposed herein are intended to reduce current regulatory requirements (
The marginal additional costs associated with these proposed rules are attributable to the streamlining
This proposed rule would revise existing metropolitan planning regulations of the FHWA and the FTA and conform those regulations to requirements of the TEA-21. While they incorporate some new requirements, the bulk of them have been in place for many years and States and metropolitan planning organizations have been implementing them. In the past, we have provided funding to support planning activities and production of required transportation documents,
The impacts on the States and MPOs result mainly from modified data collection and analysis activities that may be necessary to implement the TEA-21 planning provisions. A single new provision in § 1410.322(b)(11) focuses on the requirements for satisfying section 5206(e) of the TEA-21 regarding demonstrating consistency of Intelligent Transportation Systems projects funded with highway trust fund dollars with the provisions of the National ITS Architecture. The economic impacts of this provision are addressed in the regulatory analysis being prepared for the specific rulemaking on ITS architecture consistency. We anticipate that the elements required in the planning process for ITS consistency would generally be undertaken anyway as a part of the plan development activities and do not require significant new processes or requirements of MPOs and States.
In general, we believe that the rule changes proposed here have added limited regulatory requirements. The impact of complying with the changes can be minimized by States and MPOs by using the flexibility provided in the proposed rule to reduce data collection and analysis costs. While there may be additional costs to some States and MPOs, the TEA-21 significantly increased the mandatory set-aside in Federal funds that must be used for transportation planning, and in addition, gives the States and MPOs the flexibility to use Federal capital dollars for transportation planning if they so desire. We are interested in the costs to States and MPOs of complying with the proposed requirements, including the expenditure of State and MPO funds above the required matching amounts. Comments on this matter are welcome.
The agencies welcome comment on the economic impacts of these proposed regulations. Comments, including those from the States and MPOs, regarding specific burdens, impacts, and costs would be most welcome and would aid us in more fully appreciating the impacts of this ongoing planning process requirement. Hence, we encourage comments on all facets of this proposal regarding its costs, burden, and impact.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of these rules on small entities, such as, local governments and businesses. The proposed metropolitan and statewide planning regulations modify existing planning requirements. These modifications are substantially dictated by the statutory provisions of the TEA-21. We believe that the flexibility available to States and MPOs in responding to requirements has been maintained, if not enhanced, in this proposal. Accordingly, the FHWA and the FTA certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We are interested in any comments regarding the potential economic impacts of these proposed rules on small entities and governments. Of specific concern are the additional costs of the incremental changes in our regulatory requirements. The agencies believe that these costs have been off-set largely by reduced statutory requirements and the flexibility built into the regulations. The agencies are requesting comments on these issues.
This proposed action has been reviewed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient Federalism implications on States and local governments that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this document directly preempts any State law or regulation. The TEA-21 and its predecessors authorize the Secretary to implement the provisions for metropolitan and statewide planning. We believe that policies in these proposed rules are consistent with the principles, criteria and requirements of the Federalism Executive Order and the TEA-21. Comments on these conclusions are welcomed and should be submitted to the docket.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 20.205, Highway planning and Construction (or 20.217); 20.500, Federal Transit Capital Improvement Grants; 20.505, Federal Transit Technical Studies Grants; 20.507, Federal Transit Capital and Operating Assistance Formula Grants. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation in Federal programs and activities apply to these programs.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. We have determined that this proposal contains a requirement for minor additional data
The reporting requirements for metropolitan UPWPs, transportation plans and transportation improvement programs are currently approved under OMB control number 2132-0529. An extension request was filed with OMB on January 28, 2000, and a Notice of Request for Extension was published in the
The creation and submission of required reports and documents have been constrained to those specifically required by the TEA-21 or essential to the performance of our findings, certifications and/or approvals. The State plans are prepared on cycles individually determined by the States; the average is 10 such submissions per year. The State TIPs are prepared every two years. Approximately one third of all metropolitan areas prepare new plans every three years. The remaining metropolitan plans are updated every five years. We have assumed a distribution over several years for the plans. We have assumed that half of all TIPs are submitted annually. We assume an annual submission of unified planning work programs. By distributing the added burden for preparing these various submissions, the net result would be a minimal burden increase for each type of submission.
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including, but not limited to: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FHWA and the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to the NPRM will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
We have analyzed these proposed actions for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1531
The requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 are supported by Federal funds administered by the FHWA and the FTA. There is a legislatively established local matching requirement for these funds of twenty percent of the total project cost. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the costs of complying with these requirements is predominantly covered by the funds they administer. However, as has been the case with previous regulatory issuances, we welcome comments from States, MPOs, transit agencies and other organizations regarding the extent to which the cost of compliance is covered by the funds provided.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of every year. The RINs contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
23 CFR Parts 450 and 1410
Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 613
Grant programs—transportation, Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 621
Grant programs—transportation, Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 315, the FHWA proposes to amend Chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. Remove part 450.
2. For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration propose to establish a new chapter IV in title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, consisting of part 1410 as set forth below:
23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 315; 42 U.S.C. 7410
The purpose of this subpart is to provide definitions for terms used in this part which go beyond those terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302.
The definitions in this subpart are applicable to this part, except as otherwise provided.
Except as defined in this subpart, terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302 are used in this part as so defined.
(1) The implementation plan which contains specific strategies for controlling emissions of and reducing ambient levels of pollutants in order to satisfy Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for demonstrations of reasonable further progress and attainment (CAA secs. 182(b)(1), 182(c)(2)(A), 182(c)(2)(B), 187(a)(7), 189(a)(1)(B), and 189(b)(1)(A); and secs.192(a) and 192(b), for nitrogen dioxide of the CAA); or
(2) The implementation plan under section 175A of the CAA as amended.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement 23 U.S.C. 135, which requires each State to carry out a transportation planning process that shall be continuing, cooperative, and
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to States and any other agencies/organizations, such as MPOs, transit operators and air quality agencies, that are responsible for satisfying these requirements for transportation planning, programming and project development throughout the State pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135.
Except as otherwise provided in subpart A of this part, terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) are used in this part as so defined.
(a) The statewide transportation planning process shall include, as a minimum, the following:
(1) Data collection and analysis;
(2) Consideration of factors contained in § 1410.208;
(3) Coordination of activities as noted in § 1410.210;
(4) Development of a statewide transportation plan for all areas of the State that considers a range of transportation options designed to meet the transportation needs (
(5) Development of a statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) for all areas of the State; and
(6) Various processes to accomplish data collection and analyses essential for an effective transportation planning process, including a process to assure that, no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, age, or physical handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation. These assurances shall be demonstrated through the following:
(i) An assessment covering the State, including at a minimum the following:
(A) A geographic and demographic profile of the State that identifies the low-income and minority, and where appropriate, elderly and persons with disabilities, components of this profile;
(B) The transportation services available to or planned for these segments of the State population;
(C) Any disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, consistent with the provisions of Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 3 CFR, 1995 comp., p. 859) as implemented through US DOT Order 5610.2 and FHWA Order 6640.23;
(D) Any denial of or a reduction in benefits;
(ii) Consideration of comments received during public involvement efforts (consistent with the provisions of § 1410.212(b)) to ensure that expressed concerns of the elderly, minority individuals and persons with disabilities, have been addressed during plan and program decision making;
(iii) Identification of prior and planned efforts to address any disproportionately high and adverse effects that are found;
(iv) The results of paragraphs (a)(5)(i), (ii) and (iii) of this section will be documented in a manner to permit public review during appropriate project development activities;
(v) The State may rely on information provided by a metropolitan planning organization for those segments of the population in metropolitan planning areas of the State; and
(vi) In accordance with Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2, and FHWA Order 6640.23, nothing in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (vi) of this section are intended to nor shall they create any right to judicial review of any action taken by the agency, its officers or its recipients taken under this part to comply with such Orders.
(b) [Reserved].
(a) Each statewide transportation planning process shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will:
(1) Support the economic vitality of the United States, the States, and metropolitan areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency;
(2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;
(3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;
(4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life;
(5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes throughout the State, for people and freight;
(6) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
(7) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
(b) In addition, in carrying out statewide transportation planning, the State shall consider, at a minimum, the following and other factors and issues that the planning process participants might identify which are important considerations within the statewide transportation planning process:
(1) With respect to nonmetropolitan areas, the concerns of local elected officials representing units of general purpose local government; and
(2) The concerns of Indian Tribal Governments and Federal land management agencies that have jurisdiction over land within the boundaries of the State.
(a) The statewide transportation planning process shall be carried out in coordination with adjacent States, adjacent countries as appropriate at the international borders, and with the metropolitan planning process required by subpart C of this part.
(b) The statewide transportation planning process shall be coordinated with air quality planning and provide for appropriate conformity analyses to the extent required by the Clean Air Act (40 U.S.C. 175 and 176). The State shall carry out its responsibilities for the development of the transportation portion of the State Implementation Plan to the extent required by the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), as appropriate within the statewide transportation planning process.
(c) Development of transportation plans, programs and planning activities shall be coordinated with related planning activities being carried out outside of metropolitan planning areas.
(d) The statewide transportation planning process shall provide a forum for coordinating data collection and analyses to support, planning, programming and project development decisions.
(e) The degree of coordination shall be based on the scale and complexity of many issues including transportation problems, safety concerns, land use, employment, economic, environmental, and housing and community development objectives, and other circumstances statewide or in subareas within the State.
(a) Non-metropolitan local official participation.
(1) The State shall have a documented process for consultation with local officials in non-metropolitan areas within the continuing, cooperative and comprehensive planning process for development of the statewide transportation plan and the statewide transportation improvement program. The process shall be documented and cooperatively developed by both the State and nonmetropolitan local officials.
(2) The process for participation of nonmetropolitan local officials shall not be reviewed or approved by the FHWA and the FTA. However, local official participation will be among the issues considered by the FHWA and the FTA in making the transportation planning finding called for in § 1410.222(b).
(b) Public involvement.
(1) Public involvement processes shall be open and proactive by providing complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and opportunities for early and continuing involvement.
(2) To satisfy these objectives public involvement processes shall provide for:
(i) Early and continuing public involvement opportunities throughout the transportation planning and programming process; and
(ii) Timely information about transportation issues and processes to citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, representatives of users of public transit, and other interested parties and segments of the community affected by transportation plans, programs, and projects;
(iii) Reasonable public access to technical and policy information used in the development of the plan and STIP;
(iv) Adequate public notice of public involvement activities and time for public review and comment at key decision points, including, but not limited, to action on the plan and STIP;
(v) A process for demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public input during the planning and program development process, including responses to input received from persons with disabilities and minority, elderly, and low-income populations;
(vi) A process for seeking out and considering the needs of those traditionally under served by existing transportation systems, including, but not limited to, low-income and minority populations which may face challenges accessing employment and other amenities;
(vii) Periodic review of the effectiveness of the public involvement process to ensure that the process provides full and open access to all and revision of the process as necessary, with specific attention to the effectiveness of efforts to engage persons with disabilities, minority individuals, the elderly and low-income populations.
(3) Public involvement activities carried out in a metropolitan area in response to metropolitan planning requirements in § 1410.322(c) or § 1410.324(c) may by agreement of the State and the MPO satisfy the requirements of this section.
(4) During initial development and major revisions of the statewide transportation plan required under § 1410.214, the State shall provide citizens, affected public agencies and jurisdictions, representatives of transportation agency employees, private and public providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transit, freight shippers providers of freight transportation services and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. The proposed plan shall be published, with reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily available for public review and comment. Likewise, the official statewide transportation plan (see § 1410.214(d)) shall be published, with reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily available for public information.
(5) During development and major revision of the statewide transportation improvement program required under § 1410.216, the Governor shall provide citizens, affected public agencies and jurisdictions, representatives of transportation agency employees, private and public providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transit, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services and other interested parties, a reasonable opportunity for review and comment on the proposed program. The proposed program shall be published, with reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily available for public review and comment. The approved program (see § 1410.222(b)) if it differs significantly from the proposed program, shall be published, with reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily available for public information.
(6) The time provided for public review and comment for minor revisions to the statewide transportation plan or statewide transportation improvement program shall be determined by the State and local officials based on the complexity of the revisions.
(7) The State shall, as appropriate, provide for public comment on existing and proposed procedures for public involvement throughout the statewide transportation planning and programming process. As a minimum, the State shall publish procedures and allow 45 days for public review and written comment before the procedures and any major revisions to existing procedures are adopted.
(c) Federal agency and other government participation. The transportation planning process shall allow for participation of other governments and agencies, particularly Indian Tribal Governments and Federal lands managing agencies. The process for consulting with Indian Tribal Governments and Federal lands managing agencies shall be cooperatively developed and documented by both the State and the Indian Tribal Government(s) or the respective Federal lands managing agency.
(d) State air quality agency and other state agency participation. The transportation planning process shall allow for participation of the State air quality agency and other state agencies as determined appropriate by the planning process participants.
(e) Participation and the planning finding. The processes for participation of interested parties will be considered by the FHWA and the FTA as they make the planning finding required in § 1410.222(b) to assure that full and
(a) The State shall develop a statewide transportation plan that shall:
(1) Cover all areas of the State;
(2) Be intermodal (including consideration and provision, as applicable, of elements and connections of and between transit, non-motorized, rail, commercial motor vehicle, waterway, and aviation facilities, particularly with respect to intercity travel) and statewide in scope in order to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods;
(3) Address the development of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) investment strategies, including an ITS Integration Strategy consistent with the provisions of § 1410.322(b)(11), to support the development of integrated technology based investments, including metropolitan and non-metropolitan investments. The scope of the integration strategy shall be appropriate to the scale of investment anticipated for ITS during the life of the plan and shall address the level of resources and staging of planned investments. ITS Integration Strategy shall be developed and documented no later than the first update of the transportation plan or STIP that occurs two years following the effective date of the final rule;
(4) Be reasonably consistent in time horizon among its elements, but cover a forecast period of at least 20 years;
(5) Provide for development and integrated management and operation of bicycle and pedestrian transportation system and facilities which are appropriately interconnected with other modes;
(6) Be coordinated with the metropolitan transportation plans required under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303;
(7) Reference, summarize or contain any applicable short range planning studies, strategic planning and/or policy studies, transportation needs studies, management system reports and any statements of policies, goals and objectives regarding issues, such as, transportation, economic development, housing, social and environmental effects, energy, etc., that were significant to development of the plan;
(8) Reference, summarize or contain information on the availability of financial (including as appropriate an optional financial plan consistent with 23 CFR 1410.214(d)) and other resources needed to carry out the plan; and
(9) Contain strategies that ensure timely compliance with the applicable SIP.
(b) The following entities shall be involved in the development of the statewide transportation plan:
(1) MPOs shall be involved on a cooperation basis for the portions of the plan affecting metropolitan planning areas;
(2) Indian Tribal Governments and the Secretary of the Interior shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan affecting areas of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal Government;
(3) Federal lands managing agencies shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the program affecting areas of the State under their jurisdiction;
(4) Affected local officials with responsibility for transportation shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan in nonmetropolitan areas of the State.
(c) In developing the statewide transportation plan, the State shall:
(1) Provide for participation by interested parties as required under § 1410.212;
(2) Provide for consideration and analysis as appropriate of specified factors as required under § 1410.208;
(3) Provide for coordination as required under § 1410.210; and
(4) Identify transportation strategies necessary to efficiently serve the mobility needs of people.
(d) The statewide transportation plan may include a financial plan that:
(1) Demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented;
(2) Indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan;
(3) Recommends any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs;
(4) Might include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the adopted transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available. The State is not required to select any project from the illustrative list for implementation, and projects on the illustrative list cannot be advanced to implementation without an action by the Secretary of Transportation on the STIP.
(e) The State shall provide and carry out a mechanism to adopt the plan as the official statewide transportation plan.
(f) The plan shall be continually evaluated and periodically updated, as appropriate, using the procedures in this section for development and establishment of the plan.
(a) Each State shall develop a statewide transportation improvement program for all areas of the State. In case of difficulties in developing the STIP portion for a particular area,
(b) The following entities shall be involved in the development of the statewide transportation improvement program:
(1) MPOs shall be involved on a cooperation basis for the portions of the program affecting metropolitan planning areas;
(2) Indian Tribal Governments and the Secretary of the Interior shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the program affecting areas of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal Government;
(3) Federal lands managing agencies shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the program affecting
(4) Affected local officials with responsibility for transportation shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the program in nonmetropolitan areas of the State.
(c) The STIP shall:
(1) Include a list of priority transportation projects proposed to be carried out in the first three years of the STIP. Since each TIP is approved by the Governor, the TIP priorities will dictate STIP priorities for each individual metropolitan area. As a minimum, the lists shall group the projects that are to be undertaken in each of the years,
(2) Cover a period of not less than three years, but may at State discretion cover a longer period. If the STIP covers more than three years, the projects in the additional years will be considered by the FHWA and the FTA only as informational;
(3) Contain only projects consistent with the statewide plan developed under § 1410.214;
(4) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, contain only transportation projects that have been found to conform, or which come from programs that conform, in accordance with the requirements contained in the EPA conformity regulation 40 CFR parts 51 and 93;
(5) Contain a project, or an identified phase of a project, only if full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project within the time period contemplated for completion of the project. The STIP financial constraint will be demonstrated and maintained by year and the STIP shall include sufficient financial information to demonstrate which projects are to be implemented using current revenues and which projects are to be implemented using proposed revenue sources while the system as a whole is being adequately operated and maintained. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included in the first two years of the current STIP/TIP shall be limited to those for which funds are available or committed. In the case of proposed funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified, preferably in an optional financial plan consistent with § 1410.216(f);
(6) Contain all capital and non-capital transportation projects (including transportation enhancements, safety, Federal lands highways projects, trails projects, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle transportation facilities), or identified phases of transportation projects, proposed for funding under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and/or title 23, U.S.C., excluding:
(i) Metropolitan planning projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5303;
(ii) State planning and research projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 307(c)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5313(b)(except those funded with national highway system (NHS), surface transportation program (STP) and minimum guarantee funds that the State and MPO for a metropolitan area agree should be in the TIP and consequently must be in the STIP); and
(iii) Emergency relief projects (except those involving substantial functional, locational or capacity changes);
(7) Contain all regionally significant transportation projects requiring an action by the FHWA or the FTA whether or not the projects are to be funded with title 23, U.S.C., or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funds, and/or selected funds administered by the Federal Railroad Administration,
(8) Identify ITS projects funded with highway trust fund monies, including as appropriate an integration strategy, consistent with the statewide plan. Where ITS projects are identified that fit the provisions of § 1410.322(b)(11), an agreement shall exist between participating agencies in the project area that will govern their implementation.
(9) Include for each project or phase the following:
(i) Sufficient descriptive material (
(ii) Estimated total project cost, which may extend beyond the three years of the STIP;
(iii) The amount of funds proposed to be obligated during each program year for the project or phase;
(iv) For the first year, the proposed category of Federal funds and source(s) of non-Federal funds for the project or phase;
(v) For the second and third years, the likely category of Federal funds and sources of non-Federal funds for the project or phase;
(vi) Identification of the agencies responsible for carrying out the project or phase; and
(10) For non-metropolitan areas, include in the first year only those projects which have been selected in accordance with the requirements in § 1410.224(c).
(d) Projects that are not considered to be of appropriate scale for individual identification in a given program year may be grouped by function, work type, and/or geographic area using the applicable classifications under 23 CFR 1420.311(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part 93. In addition, projects funded under chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. may be grouped by funding category and shown as one line item, unless they are determined to be regionally significant.
(e) Projects in any of the first three years of the STIP may be moved to any other of the first three years of the STIP subject to the requirements of § 1410.224.
(f) The statewide transportation improvement program may include a financial plan that:
(1) Demonstrates how the adopted transportation improvement program can be implemented;
(2) Indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the program;
(3) Recommends any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs;
(4) Might include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the transportation improvement program if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available. The State is not required to select any project from the illustrative list for implementation, and projects on the illustrative list cannot be advanced to implementation without an action by the Secretary on the STIP.
(g) The STIP may be modified at any time under procedures agreed to by the cooperating parties consistent with the procedures established in this section (for STIP development), in § 1410.212 (for interested party participation) and in § 1410.222 (for the FHWA and the FTA approval).
(a) Depending upon its character and the level of detail desired as determined by the planning process participants, the statewide planning process products and analyses can be utilized as input to subsequent project development. The process described in § 1410.318 relating planning and project development may
(b) The results of analyses conducted under paragraph (a) of this section, at the option of the planning participants, may:
(1) Be documented as part of the plan development record for consideration in subsequent project development actions;
(2) Serve as input to the NEPA process required under 23 CFR 1420;
(3) Provide a basis, in part, for project level decision making; and
(4) Be proposed for consideration as support for actions and decisions by federal agencies other than US DOT;
(c) To the extent feasible, Federal, State, and local agencies with subsequent project level responsibilities for investments included in a transportation plan, shall be involved in planning analyses and studies as a means to reduce subsequent project development analyses and studies, support decisionmaking, and provide early identification of key concerns for later consideration and analysis as needed. Where the processes available under § 1410.318(f) are invoked, the FHWA and the FTA shall be consulted.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as requiring formal NEPA review of or action on plans and TIPs.
(e) The FHWA and the FTA project level actions, including, but not limited to issuance of a categorical exclusion, finding of no significant impact or a final environmental impact statement under 23 CFR 1420, right of way acquisition (with the exception of hardship and protective buying actions), interstate interchange approvals, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) conversions, funding of ITS projects, project conformity analyses and approval of final design and construction and transit vehicle acquisition may not be completed unless the proposed project action is included in a STIP which meets the requirements of this subpart. None of these project level actions can occur in nonattainment and maintenance areas unless the project conforms according to the requirements of the EPA's conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
Funds provided under 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5307, 5309, 5311, and 5313(b) and 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), 104(f), 105, and 505(a) may be used to accomplish activities in this subpart.
(a) At least every two years, each State shall submit the entire proposed STIP, and amendments as necessary, concurrently to the FHWA and the FTA for joint approval. The State shall certify that the transportation planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements of:
(1) 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, 49 U.S.C. 5303-5305 and 5323(k), and this part;
(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 21 and 23 CFR part 230);
(3) Section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. 324);
(4) The Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); and
(5) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 35);
(6) Section 1101 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in the FHWA and the FTA funded projects (sec. 105(f), Public Law 97-424, 96 Stat. 2100; 49 CFR part 23);
(7) The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
(8) The provisions of 49 CFR part 20 regarding restrictions on influencing certain Federal activities;
(9) In States containing nonattainment and maintenance areas, sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d)); and
(10) all other applicable provisions of Federal law.
(b) The FHWA and the FTA Administrators, in consultation with, where applicable, Federal land managing agencies, will review the STIP or amendment and jointly make a finding (based on self-certifications made by the State and appropriate reviews established and conducted by FTA and FHWA) as to the extent the projects in the STIP are based on a planning process that meets or substantially meets the requirements of title 23, U.S.C., 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and subparts A, B, and C of this part.
(1) If, upon review, the FHWA and the FTA Administrators jointly find that the planning process through which the STIP was developed meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and these regulations (including subpart C where a metropolitan TIP is involved), they will unconditionally approve the STIP.
(2) If the FHWA and the FTA administrators jointly find that the planning process through which the STIP was developed substantially meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and these regulations (including subpart C where a metropolitan TIP is involved), they will act on the STIP or amendment as follows:
(i) Joint conditional approval of the STIP subject to certain corrective actions being taken;
(ii) Joint conditional approval of the STIP as the basis for approval of identified categories of projects; and/or
(iii) Under special circumstances, joint conditional approval of a partial STIP covering only a portion of the State.
(3) If, upon review, the FHWA and the FTA Administrators jointly find that the STIP or amendment does not substantially meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and this part for any identified categories of projects, they will not approve the STIP or amendment.
(c) The joint approval period for a new STIP or amended STIP shall not exceed two years. Where the State demonstrates, in writing, that extenuating circumstances will delay the submittal of a new STIP or amended STIP for approval, the FHWA and the FTA will consider and take appropriate action on requests to extend the approval beyond two years for all or part of the STIP for a limited period of time, not to exceed 180 days. Where the request involves projects in a metropolitan planning area(s), the affected MPO(s) must concur in the request and if the delay was due to the development and approval of the TIP, the affected MPO(s) must provide supporting information, in writing, for the request. If nonattainment and/or maintenance areas are involved, a request for an extension cannot be granted.
(d) The FHWA and the FTA will notify the State of actions taken under this section.
(e) Where necessary in order to maintain or establish operations, the Federal Transit Administrator and/or the Federal Highway Administrator may approve operating assistance for specific projects or programs funded under 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 5311 even though the projects or programs may not be included in an approved STIP.
(a) Except as provided in § § 1410.222(e) and 1410.216(c)(6), only
(b) In metropolitan planning areas, transportation projects requiring 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funds administered by the FHWA or the FTA shall be selected from the approved TIP/STIP in accordance with procedures established pursuant to the project selection portion of the metropolitan planning regulation in subpart C of this part.
(c) Outside metropolitan planning areas, transportation projects undertaken on the National Highway System with title 23 funds and under the bridge and Interstate maintenance programs shall be selected from the approved STIP by the State in consultation with the affected local officials. Federal lands highway projects shall be selected from the approved STIP in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204. Other transportation projects undertaken with funds administered by the FHWA shall be selected from the approved STIP by the State in cooperation with the affected local officials, and projects undertaken with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funds shall be selected from the approved STIP by the State in cooperation with the appropriate affected local officials and transit operators.
(d) The projects in the first year of an approved STIP shall constitute an “agreed to” list of projects for subsequent scheduling and implementation. No further action under paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section is required for the implementing agency to proceed with these projects except that if appropriated Federal funds available are significantly less than the authorized amounts, § 1410.332(c) provides for a revised list of “agreed to” projects to be developed upon the request of the State, the MPO, or transit operators. If an implementing agency wishes to proceed with a project in the second and third year of the STIP, the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section or as agreed to by the parties under paragraph (e) of this section must be used.
(e) Expedited procedures which provide for the advancement of projects from the second or third years of the STIP may be used if agreed to by all the parties involved in the selection process.
Any decision by the Secretary concerning a transportation plan or transportation improvement program developed through the processes provided for in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 through 5305, shall not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review under NEPA.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306 which require that a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) be designated for each urbanized area (UZA) and that the metropolitan area have a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process that results in plans and programs that consider all transportation modes and support metropolitan community development and social goals. The transportation plan and program shall facilitate the development, management and operation of an integrated, intermodal transportation system that enables the safe, efficient, economic movement of people and goods.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to agencies responsible for satisfying the requirements of the transportation planning, programming, and project development processes in metropolitan planning areas pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134.
Except as otherwise provided in subpart A of this part, terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302 are used in this part as so defined.
(a) Designations of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) made after December 18, 1991, shall be by agreement among the Governor(s) and units of general purpose local governments representing 75 percent of the affected metropolitan population (including the central city or cities as defined by the Bureau of the Census), or in accordance with procedures established by applicable State or local law. A single metropolitan planning organization, to the extent possible, shall be designated to serve a metropolitan planning area containing:
(1) A single UZA, or
(2) Multiple UZAs that are contiguous with each other or located within the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
(b) The designation or redesignation shall clearly identify the policy body that is the forum for cooperative decision making that will be taking the required approval actions as the MPO.
(c) To the extent possible, the MPO designated should be established under specific State legislation, State enabling legislation, or by interstate compact, and shall have authority to carry out metropolitan transportation planning.
(d) Nothing in this subpart shall be deemed to prohibit an MPO from utilizing the staff resources of other agencies to carry out selected elements of the planning process.
(e) Existing MPO designations remain valid until a new MPO is redesignated. Redesignation is accomplished by the Governor and local units of government representing 75 percent of the population in the area served by the existing MPO (the central city(ies) must be among those desiring to revoke the MPO designation). If the Governor and local officials decide to redesignate an existing MPO, but do not formally revoke the existing MPO designation, the existing MPO designation remains in effect until a new MPO is formally designated.
(f) Redesignation of an MPO in a multistate metropolitan area requires the approval of the Governor of each State and local officials representing 75 percent of the population in the entire metropolitan planning area. The local officials in the central city(ies) must be among those agreeing to the redesignation.
(g) Redesignation of an MPO covering more than one UZA requires the approval of the Governor(s) and local officials representing 75 percent of the population in the metropolitan planning area covered by the current MPO. The local officials in the central city(ies) in each urbanized area must be among those agreeing to the redesignation.
(h) The voting membership of an MPO policy body designated/redesignated subsequent to December 18, 1991, and serving a TMA, must include representation of local elected officials, officials of agencies that administer or operate major modes or systems of transportation,
(i) Where the metropolitan planning area boundary for a previously designated MPO needs to be expanded, the membership on the MPO policy body and other committees, should be reviewed to ensure that the added area has appropriate representation.
(j) Adding membership (
(a) The metropolitan planning area boundary shall, as a minimum, cover the UZA(s) and the contiguous geographic area(s) likely to become urbanized within, at a minimum, the twenty year forecast period covered by the transportation plan described in § 1410.322.
(1) For existing MPOs, unless modified by agreement of the Governor and the MPO, the planning area boundaries shall be those in existence as of June 9, 1998. For MPOs designated after June 9, 1998, the boundaries shall be those agreed to by the Governor and local officials as indicated in § 1410.306(a).
(2) The boundary may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the Bureau of the Census.
(3) For new MPOs, the planning area boundary shall reflect agreements between the MPO and the State DOT regarding the relationship of the metropolitan planning area boundary to any nonattainment and maintenance area within its designated limits or contiguous nonattainment or maintenance area excluded from the boundary.
(b) The metropolitan planning area for a new UZA served by an existing or new MPO shall be established in accordance with these criteria. The current planning area boundaries for previously designated UZAs shall be reviewed and modified if necessary to comply with these criteria.
(c) In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, the planning areas currently in use for all transportation modes should be reviewed before establishing the metropolitan planning area boundary. Where appropriate, adjustments should be made to reflect the most comprehensive boundary to foster an effective planning process that ensures connectivity between modes and their operational integration, and promotes efficient overall transportation investment strategies in support of mobility and accessibility.
(d) Approval of metropolitan planning area boundaries by the FHWA and/or the FTA is not required. However, metropolitan planning area boundary maps must be submitted to the FHWA and the FTA after their approval by the MPO and the Governor and be made publicly available.
(e) The STP funds suballocated to urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population shall not be utilized for projects outside the metropolitan planning area boundary.
(a) The responsibilities for cooperatively carrying out transportation planning and programming shall be clearly identified in an agreement or memorandum of understanding among the State(s), operators of publicly owned mass transit, and the MPO.
(b) Where project development activities are conducted under the planning process, they shall be documented in an agreement between the MPO and the applicable project sponsor addressing, at a minimum, the provisions of § 1410.318.
(c) In nonattainment or maintenance areas, if the MPO is not designated as the agency responsible for air quality planning under section 174 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), there shall be an agreement between the MPO and the designated agency describing their respective roles and responsibilities for air quality related transportation planning.
(d) Where the parties involved agree, the requirement for agreements specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section may be satisfied by including the responsibilities and procedures for carrying out a cooperative process in the unified planning work program or a prospectus.
(e) If the metropolitan planning area does not include the entire nonattainment or maintenance area, there shall be an agreement among the State department of transportation, State air quality agency, affected local agencies, and the MPO describing the process for cooperative planning and analysis of all projects outside the metropolitan planning area but within the nonattainment or maintenance area. The agreement must indicate how the total transportation related emissions for the nonattainment or maintenance area, including areas both within and outside the metropolitan planning area, will be treated for the purposes of determining conformity in accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). The agreement shall address policy mechanisms for resolving conflicts concerning transportation related emissions that may arise between the metropolitan planning area and the portion of the nonattainment or maintenance area outside the metropolitan planning area. Proposals to exclude a portion of the nonattainment or maintenance area from the planning area boundary shall be coordinated with the FHWA, the FTA, the EPA, and the State air quality agency before a final boundary decision is made for the metropolitan planning area.
(f) Where more than one MPO has authority within a metropolitan planning area, a nonattainment or maintenance area, and/or in the case of adjoining metropolitan planning areas, there shall be an agreement between the State department(s) of transportation and the MPOs describing how the processes and projects will be coordinated to assure the development of an overall transportation plan for the planning area(s). In metropolitan planning areas that are nonattainment or maintenance areas, the agreement shall include State and local air quality agencies, and be consistent with the provisions of § 1410.312(c). The agreement shall address policy mechanisms for resolving potential conflicts that may arise between the MPOs,
(g) Where the planning process develops an ITS Integration Strategy
(h) To the extent possible, a single cooperative agreement containing the understandings required by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section among the State(s), the MPO, publicly owned operators of mass transportation services, and air quality agencies may be developed. Where the participating planning organizations desire, they may further consolidate agreements required by paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section with those addressed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(i) For all requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, existing agreements shall be reviewed by the MPO, the State DOT and the transit operator for compliance and reaffirmed or modified as necessary to ensure participation by all appropriate modes.
(a) The MPO in cooperation with the State and with operators of publicly owned transit services shall be responsible for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process. The MPO, the State and transit operator(s) shall cooperatively determine their mutual responsibilities in the conduct of the planning process. They shall cooperatively develop the unified planning work program, transportation plan, and transportation improvement program specified in §§ 1410.314 through 1410.332. In addition, the development of the plan and TIP shall be coordinated with other providers of transportation,
(b) The MPO shall approve the metropolitan transportation plan, plan amendments and plan updates. The MPO and the Governor shall approve the metropolitan transportation improvement program and any amendments.
(c) In nonattainment or maintenance areas:
(1) The transportation and air quality planning processes shall be coordinated;
(2) TCMs proposed for FHWA and FTA funding and/or approvals shall come from a plan and TIP that fully meet the requirements of this subpart (new TCMs authorized to proceed during a conformity lapse will meet the requirements of this subpart if they are included in an interim plan and program and approved into a SIP with emission reduction benefits); and
(3) MPOs shall participate in the development of motor vehicle emissions budgets, inventories and other transportation related air quality activities undertaken to develop SIPs to the extent required by the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504).
(d) In nonattainment or maintenance areas for transportation related pollutants, the MPO shall not approve any transportation plan or program which does not conform with the SIP, as determined in accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
(e) If more than one MPO has authority in a metropolitan planning area (including multi-State metropolitan planning areas) or in an area which is designated as nonattainment or maintenance for transportation related pollutants, the MPOs and the Governor(s) shall cooperatively establish the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area (addressing the required twenty year planning horizon and relationship to the nonattainment or maintenance areas) and the respective jurisdictional responsibilities of each MPO. The MPOs shall consult with each other and the State(s) to assure that plans and transportation improvement programs are coordinated for the entire metropolitan planning area, including, but not limited to, coordinated data collection, analysis and plan development. Alternatively, a single plan and/or TIP for the entire metropolitan area may be developed jointly by the MPOs in cooperation with their planning partners. Coordination efforts shall be documented in subsequent transmittals of the unified planning work program (UPWP) and various planning products (the plan, TIP, etc.) to the State(s), the FHWA, and the FTA.
(f) The FTA and the FHWA must designate as transportation management areas all UZAs over 200,000 population as determined by the most recent decennial census. The TMAs so designated and those designated subsequently by the FTA and the FHWA (including those designated upon request of the MPO and the Governor) must comply with the special requirements applicable to such areas regarding congestion management systems, project selection, and planning certification. The TMA designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area boundary. If a metropolitan planning area encompasses a TMA and other UZA(s), the designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area regardless of the population of constituent UZAs.
(g) In TMAs, the congestion management system shall be developed as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process.
(h) The State shall cooperatively participate in the development of metropolitan transportation plans and metropolitan plans shall be coordinated with the statewide transportation plan. The relationship of the statewide transportation plan and the metropolitan plan is specified in subpart B of this part.
(i) Where a metropolitan planning area includes Federal public lands and/or Indian Tribal lands, the affected Federal agencies and Indian Tribal Governments shall be consulted in the development of transportation plans and programs.
(j) Discretionary grants awarded by the FHWA and the FTA under section 1221 of the TEA-21 (23 U.S.C. 101 note) (Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program), sections 1118 and 1119 of the TEA-21 (Borders and Corridors) and section 3037 (49 U.S.C. 5309 note) (Access to Jobs) shall be included in the appropriate metropolitan plan and program, except where these funds are utilized for planning and/or research activities. Applicants shall coordinate with the appropriate MPO to ensure that such projects are consistent with the provisions of this subpart. Where planning and research activities are funded under the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program or the Borders and Corridors Program, they shall be identified in the Unified Planning Work Program as identified at § 1410.314.
(a) The MPO(s) in cooperation with the State and operators of publicly owned transit shall develop unified planning work programs (UPWPs) that meet the requirements of 23 CFR part 420, subpart A, and:
(1) Discuss the planning priorities facing the metropolitan planning area and describe all metropolitan transportation and transportation-related air quality planning activities
(2) Document planning activities to be performed with funds provided under title 23 and Chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C.
(b) Arrangements may be made with the FHWA and the FTA to combine the UPWP requirements with the work program for other Federal sources of planning funds.
(c) In areas not designated as TMAs and which are in attainment for air quality purposes, the MPO in cooperation with the State and transit operator(s), with the approval of the FHWA and the FTA, may prepare a simplified statement of work, in lieu of a UPWP, that describes who will perform the work and the work that will be accomplished using Federal funds (administered under title 23 U.S.C. and Chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C. If a simplified statement of work is used, it may be submitted as part of the statewide planning work program, in accordance with 23 CFR part 420.
(d) MPOs, which include non-attainment or maintenance areas, should consult with the US EPA and state/local air agencies in the development of their UPWP regarding appropriate tasks to support attainment of air quality standards.
(a) Each metropolitan planning process shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will:
(1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan planning area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
(2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
(3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;
(4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life;
(5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;
(6) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
(7) Emphasize the efficient preservation of the existing transportation system.
(b) In addition, the metropolitan transportation planning process shall develop and adopt a proactive public involvement process that provides complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the public in developing plans and TIPs. To attain these objectives the process as developed shall meet the requirements and criteria as follows:
(1) Require a minimum public comment period of 45 days before the public involvement process is initially adopted or revised;
(2) Provide timely information about transportation issues and processes (including but not limited to initiation of plan and TIP updates, revisions and/or other modifications and the general structure of the planning process) to citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, users of public transit, freight shippers, private providers of transportation, other interested parties and segments of the community affected by transportation plans, programs and projects (including but not limited to central city and other local jurisdiction concerns);
(3) Provide reasonable public access to technical and policy information used in the development of plans and TIPs and open public meetings where matters related to the Federal-aid highway and transit programs are being considered;
(4) Require adequate public notice of public involvement activities and time for public review and comment at key decision points, including, but not limited to, approval of plans and TIPs (in nonattainment areas classified as serious and above, the comment period shall be at least 30 days for the plan, TIP and major amendment(s));
(5) Demonstrate explicit consideration, recognition and feedback to public input received during the planning and program development processes, including responses to input received from minority, elderly, low-income, and persons with disabilities populations;
(6) Seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally under served by existing transportation systems, including, but not limited to, low-income, the elderly, persons with disabilities and minority populations;
(7) When comments are received on the draft transportation plan or TIP (including the financial plan) as a result of the public involvement process or the interagency consultation process required under the U.S. EPA conformity regulations, a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments shall be made part of the final plan and TIP;
(8) If the final transportation plan or TIP differs significantly from the one which was made available for public comment by the MPO and raises new material issues which interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen from the public involvement efforts, an additional opportunity for public comment on the revised plan or TIP shall be made available;
(9) Public involvement processes shall be periodically reviewed by the MPO in terms of their effectiveness in assuring that the process provides full and open access to all, with specific attention to the effectiveness of efforts to engage persons with disabilities, minority individuals, the elderly and low income populations;
(10) These procedures will be reviewed by the FHWA and the FTA during certification reviews for TMAs, and as otherwise necessary for all MPOs, to assure that full and open access is provided to MPO decision making processes;
(11) Metropolitan public involvement processes shall be coordinated with statewide public involvement processes and with project development public involvement processes wherever possible to enhance public consideration of the issues, plans, and programs and reduce redundancies and costs.
(c) Transportation plan development and plans shall be consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 21 and 23 CFR part 230); section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. 324); the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, as amended) and implementing regulations (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38); section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 35), which ensure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, age, or physical handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal assistance from the United States Department of Transportation. Consistency shall be demonstrated through:
(1) An assessment covering the entire metropolitan planning area, including at a minimum the following:
(i) A geographic and demographic profile of the metropolitan planning
(ii) The transportation services available to and planned for these segments of the metropolitan planning area's population, and
(iii) Any disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts, including interrelated social and economic impacts, affecting these populations, consistent with the provisions of Executive Order 12898 as implemented through U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 and FHWA Order 6640.23. Adverse effects can include a denial of or a reduction in benefits;
(2) Consideration of comments received during public involvement efforts (consistent with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section to ensure that expressed concerns of the elderly, low-income individuals, minority individuals and persons with disabilities, have been addressed during plan and program decision making;
(3) Identification of prior and planned efforts to address any disproportionately high and adverse effects that are found;
(4) The results of paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of this section will be documented in a manner to permit public review during appropriate project development activities. In accordance with Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2, and FHWA Order 6640.23, nothing in this subpart is intended to nor shall create any right to judicial review of any action taken by the agencies, their officers or recipients under this subpart to comply with such orders.
(d) The transportation planning process shall identify actions necessary to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, U.S. DOT regulations “Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities” (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 35).
(e) The transportation plan development process shall provide for the involvement of traffic, ridesharing, parking, transportation safety and enforcement agencies; commuter rail operators; airport and port authorities; toll authorities; appropriate private transportation providers and where appropriate city officials; freight shippers; transit users.
(f) The transportation planning process shall provide for the involvement of local, State, and Federal environmental resource and permit agencies as appropriate.
(g) The transportation planning process shall provide for the involvement of Indian Tribal Governments and the Secretary of Interior on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan affecting areas under the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal Government.
(h) Simplified planning procedures may be proposed in non-TMAs which are in attainment for air quality purposes. The FHWA and the FTA shall review the proposed procedures for consistency with the requirements of this section.
(i) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include preparation of technical and other reports to assure documentation of the development, refinement, and update of the transportation plan. The reports shall be reasonably available to interested parties, consistent with paragraph (b) of this section.
(j) The metropolitan planning process should provide a forum to coordinate all federally funded non-emergency transportation services within the metropolitan planning area. Where coordination processes are developed within the transportation planning process, at a minimum they should address the planning and delivery of services supporting access to jobs and reverse commute options, relying where feasible on existing processes and procedures.
(a) In order to coordinate and streamline the planning and NEPA processes, the planning process, through the cooperation of the MPO, the State DOT and the transit operator, shall provide the following to the NEPA process:
(1) An identification of an initial statement of purpose and need for transportation investments;
(2) Findings and conclusions regarding purpose and need, identification and evaluation of alternatives studied in planning activities (including but not limited to the relevant design concepts and scope of the proposed action), and identification of the alternative included in the plan;
(3) An identification of the planning documents that provide the basis for paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section; and
(4) Formal expressions of policy support or comment by the planning process participants on paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) The following sources of information shall be utilized to satisfy paragraph (a) of this section at a level of detail agreed to by the MPO, the State DOT, and the transit operator:
(1) Inventories of social, economic and environmental resources and conditions;
(2) Analyses of economic, social and environmental consequences;
(3) Evaluation(s) of transportation benefits, other benefits, costs, and consequences, at a geographic scale agreed to by the planning participants, of alternatives, including but not limited to the relevant design concepts and scope of the proposed action;
(4) Data and supporting analyses to facilitate funding related decisions by Federal agencies where appropriate or required, including but not limited to 49 CFR part 611.
(c) The products resulting from paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be reviewed early in the NEPA process in accordance with § 1420.201 to determine their appropriate use.
(d) In order to streamline subsequent project development analyses and studies, and promote better decision making, the FTA and the FHWA strongly encourage all Federal, State, and local agencies with subsequent project level responsibilities for investments included in a transportation plan to do the following:
(1) Participate in planning analyses and studies to the extent possible;
(2) Provide early identification of key concerns for later consideration and analysis as needed; and
(3) Utilize the sources of information identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) The analyses conducted under paragraph (b)(3) of this section may serve as the alternatives analysis required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e) for new fixed guideway transit systems and extensions and the information required under 49 CFR part 611 shall be generated.
(f) Any decision by the Secretary concerning a transportation plan or transportation improvement program developed in accordance with this part shall not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
(g) The FHWA and the FTA project level actions, including but not limited to issuance of a categorical exclusion, finding of no significant impact or final environmental impact statement under 23 CFR part 1420, approval of right of way acquisition, interstate interchange approvals, approvals of HOV
(a) In TMAs designated as nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide, Federal funds may not be programmed for any project that will result in a significant increase in carrying capacity for single occupant vehicles (a new general purpose highway on a new location or adding general purpose lanes, with the exception of safety improvements or the elimination of bottlenecks) unless the project results from a congestion management system (CMS) meeting the requirements of 23 CFR part 500. Such projects shall incorporate all reasonably available strategies to manage the single occupant vehicle (SOV) facility effectively (or to facilitate its management in the future). Other travel demand reduction and operational management strategies, as appropriate for the corridor, but not appropriate for incorporation into the SOV facility itself, shall be committed to by the State and the MPO for implementation in a timely manner, but no later than the completion date for the SOV project.
(b) In TMAs, the planning process must include the development of a CMS that provides for effective management of new and existing transportation facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management.
(c) The effectiveness of the congestion management system in enhancing transportation investment decisions and improving the overall efficiency of the metropolitan area's transportation systems and facilities shall be evaluated periodically, preferably as part of the metropolitan planning process.
(a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include the development of a transportation plan addressing at least a twenty year planning horizon. The plan shall include both long-range and short-range strategies/actions, including, but not limited to, operations and management activities, that lead to the systematic development of an integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in addressing current and future transportation demand. The transportation plan shall be reviewed and updated every five years in attainment areas and at least triennially in nonattainment and maintenance areas to confirm its validity and its consistency with current and forecasted transportation and land use conditions and trends and to extend the forecast period. The transportation plan must be approved by the MPO. Update processes shall include a mechanism for ensuring that the MPO, the State DOT and the transit operator agree that the data utilized in preparing other existing modal plans providing input to the transportation plan are valid and benchmarked in relation to each other and the transportation plan. In updating a plan, the MPO shall base the update on the latest estimates and assumptions for population, land use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity. Reaffirmation or revisions of metropolitan plan contents and supporting analyses produced by an update review require approval by the MPO.
(b) In addition, the plan shall, consistent with the following:
(1) Identify the projected transportation demand of persons and goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of the plan;
(2) Identify adopted management and operations strategies (
(3) Identify pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation facilities in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g);
(4) Reflect the consideration given to the results of the congestion management system, including in TMAs that are nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide and ozone, identification of SOV projects that result from a congestion management system that meets the requirements of 23 CFR part 500;
(5) Assess capital investment and other measures necessary to preserve the existing transportation system (including requirements for operational improvements, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of existing and future major roadways, as well as operations, maintenance, modernization, and rehabilitation of existing and future transit facilities) and make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and enhance the mobility of people and goods;
(6) Include design concept and scope descriptions of all existing and proposed transportation facilities in sufficient detail, regardless of the source of funding, in nonattainment and maintenance areas to permit conformity determinations under the U.S. EPA conformity regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. In all areas, all proposed improvements shall be described in sufficient detail to develop cost estimates;
(7) Reflect a multimodal evaluation of the transportation, socioeconomic, environmental, and financial impact of the overall plan;
(8) Reflect, to the extent that they exist, consideration of: Comprehensive long-range land use plan(s) and development objectives; State and local housing goals and strategies, community development and employment plans and strategies, and environmental resource plans; linking low income households with employment opportunities as reflected in work force training and labor mobility plans and strategies; energy conservation goals; and the metropolitan area's overall social, economic, and environmental goals and objectives;
(9) Indicate, as appropriate, proposed transportation enhancement activities as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a); and
(10) Include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments (including illustrative projects where identified in the financial plan) with already available and projected sources of revenue. The financial plan shall compare the estimated revenue from existing and proposed funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be available for transportation uses, and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the total (existing plus planned) transportation system over the period of the plan. Financial estimates utilized in preparing transportation plans (and TIPs) shall be developed through procedures cooperatively established and mutually agreed to by the MPO, the State DOT and the transit operator(s). The estimated revenue by existing revenue source (local, State, Federal and private) available for transportation projects
(11) Include an ITS integration strategy for the purposes of guiding and coordinating the management and funding of ITS investments supported with highway trust fund dollars to achieve an integrated regional system. The scope of the integration strategy shall be appropriate to the scale of investment anticipated for ITS during the life of the plan and shall address the resource commitments and staging of planned investments. Provision shall be made to include participation from the following agencies, at a minimum, in the development of the integration strategy: Highway and public safety agencies; appropriate Federal lands agencies; State motor carrier agencies as appropriate; and other operating agencies necessary to fully address regional ITS integration. In determining how ITS investments will meet metropolitan goals and objectives, the integration strategy shall clearly assess existing and future ITS systems, including their functions and electronic information sharing expectations. Unique regional ITS initiatives (a program of related projects) that are multi-jurisdictional and/or multi-modal, ITS projects that affect regional integration of ITS systems, and projects which directly support national interoperability shall be identified. Documentation within the plan shall reflect the scale of investment and the needs and size of the metropolitan area.
(c) There must be adequate opportunity for public official (including elected officials) and citizen involvement in the development of the transportation plan before it is approved by the MPO, in accordance with the requirements of § 1410.316(b). Such procedures shall include opportunities for interested parties (including citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, freight shippers, representatives of users of public transit, providers of freight transportation services, and private providers of transportation) to be involved in the early stages of the plan development/update process. The procedures shall include publication of the proposed plan or other methods to make it readily available for public review and comment and, in nonattainment TMAs, an opportunity for at least one formal public meeting annually to review planning assumptions and the plan development process with interested parties and the general public. The procedures also shall include publication of the approved plan or other methods to make it readily available for information purposes.
(d) In nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the MPO, must make a conformity determination on any new/revised plan in accordance with the Clean Air Act and the EPA conformity regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). If a conformity determination cannot be accomplished by either the MPO and or the FHWA and the FTA, the results will be communicated to the Governor or the Governor's designee and the public transit operator with an explanation of the potential consequences.
(e) The FHWA and the FTA do not approve transportation plans. However, Federal actions and approvals, including, but not limited to, conformity determinations, planning findings (pursuant to § 1410.322(b)), STIP approvals, completion of the NEPA process, grant agreements, and project authorizations, are based on a transportation plan with a horizon of at least twenty years on the effective date of the plan. Plans that remain substantially unchanged (i.e., regionally significant projects in attainment areas and non-exempt projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas have not been added) after adoption may serve as the basis for subsequent Federal actions until such time as the next update. In attainment areas the effective date of the plan shall be its date of adoption by the MPO. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the effective date shall be the date of a conformity determination by the FHWA and the FTA.
(f) Although transportation plans do not need to be approved by the FHWA or the FTA, copies of any new/revised plans must be provided to each agency.
(g) During a conformity lapse metropolitan areas can prepare an interim plan as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse (as defined in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93). In areas which expect to return to conformity earlier than six months, the emphasis should be on reestablishing conformity, rather than embarking on developing an interim plan and TIP.
(a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include development of a transportation improvement program (TIP) for the metropolitan planning area by the MPO in cooperation with the State and public transit operators.
(b) The TIP must be updated at least every two years and approved by the MPO and the Governor. The frequency and cycle for updating the TIP must be compatible with the STIP development and approval process. Since the TIP becomes part of the STIP, the TIP lapses when the FHWA and the FTA approval for the STIP lapses. In the case of extenuating circumstances, the FHWA and the FTA will consider and take appropriate action on requests to extend the STIP approval period for all or part of the STIP in accordance with § 1410.222(c). TIP extensions shall not be granted in nonattainment or maintenance areas. Although metropolitan TIPs are not approved individually by the FHWA or the FTA, they are approved as part of the STIP approval action by the FTA and the FHWA. Copies of any new or amended TIPs must be provided to each agency. Additionally, in nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the MPO, must make a conformity determination on any new or amended TIPs (unless the new amended TIP consists entirely of exempt projects) in accordance with the Clean Air Act requirements and the EPA conformity regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
(c) There must be reasonable opportunity for public comment in accordance with the requirements of § 1410.316(b) and, in nonattainment TMAs, an opportunity for at least one formal public meeting during the TIP development process. This public meeting may be combined with the public meeting required under § 1410.322(c). The proposed TIP shall be published or otherwise made readily available for review and comment. Similarly, the approved TIP shall be published or otherwise made readily available for information purposes.
(d) The TIP shall cover a period of not less than three years, but may cover a longer period if it identifies priorities and financial information for the additional years. The TIP must include a priority list of projects to be advanced in the first three years. As a minimum,
(e) The TIP shall be financially constrained by year and include a financial plan that demonstrates which projects can be implemented using current revenue sources and which projects are to be implemented using proposed revenue sources (while the existing transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained). The financial plan shall be developed by the MPO in cooperation with the State and the transit operator. Financial estimates utilized in preparing TIPs shall be developed through procedures cooperatively established and mutually agreed to by the MPO, the State DOT and the transit operator(s). It is expected that the State would develop this information as part of the STIP development process and that the estimates would be refined through this process. Only projects for which construction and operating funds can reasonably be expected to be available (and illustrative projects) may be included. In the case of new funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified. In developing the financial analysis, the MPO shall take into account all projects and strategies funded under title 23, U.S.C., 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, other Federal funds, local sources, State assistance, and private participation. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included for the first two years of the current TIP shall be limited to those for which funds are available or committed.
(f) The TIP shall include:
(1) All transportation projects, or identified phases of a project, (including pedestrian walkways, safety, bicycle transportation facilities and transportation enhancement projects) within the metropolitan planning area proposed for funding under title 23, U.S.C., and Federal Lands Highway projects. Title 49, U.S.C., Emergency relief projects (except those involving substantial functional, locational or capacity changes) and planning and research activities (except those funded with NHS, STP, and/or Minimum Guarantee funds) are exempt from this requirement. Planning and research activities funded with NHS, STP and/or Minimum Guarantee funds may be excluded from the TIP by agreement of the State and the MPO;
(2) Only projects that are consistent with the transportation plan;
(3) All regionally significant transportation projects for which an FHWA or FTA action is required whether or not the projects are to be funded with title 23, U.S.C., or title 49, U.S.C., funds, e.g., addition of an interchange to the Interstate System with State, local, and/or private funds, demonstration projects not funded under titles 23 and 49, U.S.C., etc.;
(4) Any FTA or FHWA funded or approved projects submitted to EPA for consideration as a SIP TCM;
(5) For air quality analysis in nonattainment and maintenance areas and informational purposes in other areas, all regionally significant transportation projects proposed to be funded with Federal funds, including intermodal facilities, not covered in paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(3) of this section; and
(6) For air quality analysis in nonattainment and maintenance areas and informational purposes in other areas, all regionally significant projects to be funded with non-Federal funds.
(g) With respect to each project or project phase under paragraph (f) of this section the TIP shall include:
(1) Sufficient descriptive material (
(2) Estimated total project cost (which may extend beyond the three years of the TIP);
(3) The amount of Federal funds proposed to be obligated during each program year for the project or phase of the project;
(4) Proposed category and source of Federal and non-Federal funds;
(5) Identification of the recipient/subrecipient and State and local agencies responsible for carrying out the project or phase of the project;
(6) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, identification of those projects or phases of projects which are identified as TCMs in the applicable SIP or are new TCMs with emissions benefits being submitted for SIP approval during a conformity lapse; and
(7) In areas with Americans with Disabilities Act required paratransit and key station plans, identification of those projects or phases of projects which will implement the plans.
(h) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included shall be specified in sufficient detail (design concept and scope) to permit air quality analysis in accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity requirements (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
(i) Projects proposed for FHWA and/or FTA funding that are not considered by the State and the MPO to be of appropriate scale for individual identification in a given program year may be grouped by function, geographic area, and work type using applicable classifications under 23 CFR 1420.117 (c) and (d). In nonattainment and maintenance areas, classifications must be consistent with the exempt project classifications contained in the U.S. EPA conformity requirements (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). In addition, projects funded under Chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. may be grouped by funding category and shown as one line unless they are determined to be regionally significant.
(j) Projects utilizing Federal funds that have been allocated to the area pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(E) shall be identified.
(k) The total Federal share of projects included in the TIP proposed for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5307 may not exceed formula backed apportioned funding levels available to the area for the program year.
(l) Procedures or agreements that distribute suballocated Surface Transportation Program or urbanized area formula (49 U.S.C. 5307) funds to individual jurisdictions or modes within the metropolitan area by predetermined percentages or formulas are inconsistent with the legislative provisions that require MPOs in cooperation with the State and transit operators to develop a prioritized and financially constrained TIP and shall not be used unless they can be clearly shown to be based on considerations required to be addressed as part of the planning process.
(m) For the purpose of including transit projects funded through Capital Investment Grants or Loans (49 U.S.C. 5309) in a TIP, the following approach shall be followed:
(1) The total Federal share of projects included in the first year of the TIP shall not exceed levels of funding committed to the area; and
(2) The total Federal share of projects included in the second, third and/or subsequent years of the TIP may not exceed levels of funding committed, apportioned, appropriated (including carryover and unobligated balances reasonably expected to be available, to the area.
(n) As a management tool for monitoring progress in implementing the transportation plan, the TIP shall:
(1) Identify the criteria and process for prioritizing implementation of transportation plan elements (including intermodal trade-offs) for inclusion in
(2) List major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented and identify any significant delays in the planned implementation of major projects;
(3) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, describe the progress in implementing any required TCMs, including the reasons for any significant delays in the planned implementation and strategies for ensuring their advancement at the earliest possible time; and
(4) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, include a list of all projects found to conform in a previous TIP. Projects shall be included in this list until construction has been fully authorized.
(5) Serve as a basis for an annual listing of projects for which Federal funds have been obligated, supplemented as appropriate to ensure annual public access to information on the obligation of funds.
(o) In order to maintain or establish operations, in the absence of an approved metropolitan TIP, the FTA and/or the FHWA Administrators, as appropriate, may approve operating assistance.
(p) During a conformity lapses metropolitan areas may prepare an interim TIP as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to proceed under a lapse (as defined in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93). In areas which expect to return to conformity earlier than six months, the emphasis should be on reestablishing conformity, rather than embarking on developing an interim plan and TIP.
The TIP may be modified at any time under procedures agreed to by the cooperating parties consistent with the procedures established in this part for its development and approval. In nonattainment or maintenance areas for transportation related pollutants, if the TIP is modified by adding or deleting non-exempt projects or is replaced with a new TIP, a new conformity determinations by the MPO and the FHWA and the FTA shall be made. Public involvement procedures consistent with § 1410.316(b) shall be utilized in modifying the TIP, except that these procedures are not required for TIP modifications that only involve projects of the type covered in § 1410.324(i).
(a) After approval by the MPO and the Governor, the TIP shall be included without modification, directly or by reference, in the STIP program required under 23 U.S.C. 135 and consistent with § 1410.220, except that in nonattainment and maintenance areas, a conformity finding by the FHWA and the FTA must be made before it is included in the STIP. After approval by the MPO and the Governor, a copy shall be provided to the FHWA and the FTA.
(b) The State shall notify the appropriate MPO and Federal Lands Highways Program agencies,
(a) The FHWA and the FTA must jointly find that each metropolitan TIP is consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan produced by the continuing, comprehensive transportation process carried on cooperatively by the States, the MPOs and the transit operators in accordance with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 5313(b). This finding shall be based on the self-certification statement submitted by the State and MPO under § 1410.334, a review of the metropolitan transportation plan and upon other reviews as deemed necessary by the FHWA and the FTA.
(b) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the FHWA and the FTA must also jointly determine, in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, that the metropolitan TIP conforms with the applicable SIP and that priority has been given to the timely implementation of transportation control measures contained in the applicable SIP. As part of their review in nonattainment and maintenance areas requiring TCMs, the FHWA and the FTA will specifically consider any comments relating to the financial plans for the plan and TIP contained in the summary of significant comments required under § 1410.316(b). If the TIP is determined to be in nonconformance with the SIP, the FHWA and FTA shall return the TIP to the Governor and the MPO with an explanation of the joint determination and an explanation of potential consequences. If the TIP is found to conform with the SIP, the Governor and MPO shall be notified of the joint finding. After the FHWA and the FTA find the TIP to be in conformance, the TIP shall be incorporated, without modification, into the STIP, directly or by reference.
(c) If an illustrative project is included in the TIP, no Federal action may be taken on that project by the FHWA and the FTA until it is formally included in the fiscally constrained and conforming plan and TIP. The MPOs are not required to include illustrative projects in future TIPs.
(a) Once a TIP that meets the requirements of § 1410.324 has been developed and approved, the first year of the TIP shall constitute an “agreed to” list of projects for project selection purposes and no further project selection action is required for the implementing agency to proceed with projects, except where the appropriated Federal funds available to the metropolitan planning area are significantly less than the authorized amounts. In this case, a revised “agreed to” list of projects shall be jointly developed by the MPO, the State, and the transit operator if requested by the MPO, the State, or the transit operator. If the State or transit operator wishes to proceed with a project in the second or third year of the TIP, the specific project selection procedures stated in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section must be used unless the MPO, the State, and the transit operator jointly develop expedited project selection procedures to provide for the advancement of projects from the second or third year of the TIP.
(b) In areas not designated as TMAs and when § 1410.332(c) does not apply, projects to be implemented using title 23 funds other than Federal lands projects or title 49 funds shall be selected by the State and/or the transit operator, in cooperation with the MPO from the approved metropolitan TIP Federal Lands Highway Program projects shall be selected in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204.
(c) In areas designated as TMAs where § 1410.332(c) does not apply, all title 23 and title 49 funded projects, except projects on the NHS and projects funded under the bridge, and Federal Lands Highways programs, shall be selected by the MPO in consultation with the State and transit operator from the approved metropolitan TIP and in accordance with the priorities in the approved metropolitan TIP. Projects on the NHS and projects funded under the bridge program shall be selected by the State in cooperation with the MPO, from the approved metropolitan TIP. Federal Lands Highway Program projects shall
(d) Projects not included in the federally approved STIP shall not be eligible for funding with title 23 or title 49, U.S.C., funds.
(e) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, priority shall be given to the timely implementation of TCMs contained in the applicable SIP in accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
(a) The State and the MPO shall annually self-certify to the FHWA and the FTA that the planning process is addressing the major issues facing the area and is being conducted in accordance with all applicable requirements of:
(1) 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306;
(2) Sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d));
(3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Title VI assurance executed by each State under 23 U.S.C. 324 and 29 U.S.C. 794;
(4) Section 1003(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240, 105 stat. 1914) regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in the FHWA and the FTA funded planning projects (sec. 105(f), Public Law 97-424, 96 Stat. 2100; 49 CFR part 23);
(5) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
(6) Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); and
(7) The provisions of 49 CFR part 20 regarding restrictions on influencing certain Federal activities.
(8) All other applicable provisions of Federal law.
(b) The FHWA and the FTA jointly will review and evaluate the transportation planning process for each TMA (as appropriate but no less than once every three years) to determine if the process meets the requirements of this subpart.
(c) In TMAs that are nonattainment or maintenance areas for transportation related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA will also review and evaluate the transportation planning process to assure that the MPO has an adequate process to ensure conformity of plans and programs in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
(d) Upon the review and evaluation conducted under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the FHWA and the FTA shall take one of the following actions, as indicated:
(1) Where the process meets the requirements of this part, jointly certify the transportation planning process;
(2) Where the process substantially meets the requirements of this part, jointly certify the transportation planning process subject to certain specified corrective actions being taken; or
(3) Where the process does not meet the requirements of this part, jointly certify the planning process as the basis for approval of only those categories of programs or projects that the Administrators may jointly determine and subject to certain specified corrective actions being taken.
(e) A certification action under this section will remain in effect for three years unless a new certification determination is made sooner or a shorter term is specified in the certification report.
(f) If, upon the review and evaluation conducted under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, the FHWA and the FTA jointly determine that the transportation planning process in a TMA does not substantially meet the requirements, they may take the following action as appropriate:
(1) Withhold up to twenty percent of the apportionment attributed to the relevant metropolitan planning area under 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3), capital funds apportioned under 49 U.S.C. 5307-5309; or
(2) Withhold approval of all or certain categories of projects.
(g) In conducting a certification review, the FHWA and the FTA shall make provision, relying on the local public involvement processes and supplemented with other involvement strategies as appropriate, to engage the public in the review process. The FHWA and the FTA shall consider the public input received in arriving at a decision on a certification action.
(h) The State and the MPO shall be notified of the actions taken under paragraph (f) of this section. Upon full, joint certification by the FHWA and the FTA, all funds withheld will be restored to the metropolitan area, unless the funds have lapsed.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Transit Administration proposes to amend Chapter VI of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
3. Remove part 613.
4. Add part 621 to read as follows:
23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; 42 U.S.C. 7410
The regulations in 23 CFR 1410, subpart A, shall be followed in complying with the requirements of this subpart.
The regulations in 23 CFR 1410 subpart B, shall be followed in complying with the requirements of this subpart.
The regulations in 23 CFR part 1410, subpart C, shall be followed in complying with the requirements of this subpart.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
The FHWA and the FTA are issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking to update and revise their National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) implementing regulation for projects funded or approved by the FHWA and the FTA. The current regulation was issued in 1987 and experience since that time as well as changes in legislation, most recently by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), call for an updated approach to implementation of NEPA for FHWA and FTA projects and actions. Under this proposed rulemaking, the FHWA/FTA regulation for implementing NEPA would be redesignated and revised to further emphasize using the NEPA process to facilitate effective and timely decisionmaking.
This NPRM is being issued concurrently with another notice of proposed rulemaking on metropolitan and statewide transportation planning. This coordinated approach to rulemaking will further the goal of the FTA and the FHWA to better coordinate the results of the planning processes with project development activities and decisions associated with the NEPA process.
Comments must be received on or before August 23, 2000. For dates of public information meetings see
Submit written, signed comments to the docket number appearing at the top of this document. You must submit your comments to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments will be available for examination at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To receive notification of receipt of comments you must include a pre-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard. For addresses of public information meetings see
For the FHWA: Mr. Fred Skaer, (202) 366-2058, Office of Planning and Environment, HEPE, or Mr. L. Harold Aikens, (202) 366-0791, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-31. For the FTA: Mr. Joseph Ossi, (202) 366-0096, Office of Planning, TPL-22, or Mr. Scott Biehl, (202) 366-0952, Office of the Chief Counsel, TCC-30. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
• Background on the NEPA Rule
• Overall Strategy for Regulatory Development
• Relationship to U.S. DOT's Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Regulation and other Rulemaking Efforts
• Section-by-Section Analysis of the Proposed Rule for NEPA and Related Procedures for Transportation Decisionmaking
• Section-by-Section Analysis of the Proposed Rule for Protection of Public Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites.
We will hold a series of seven public briefings within the comment period for the NPRM. The purposes of these briefings is to explain the content of the NPRM and encourage public input to the final rulemaking. The meetings will address this NPRM, the companion NPRM on the metropolitan and statewide planning process and the NPRM on Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture consistency. The meetings will be scheduled from approximately 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the locations listed below. Changes in the information below will be made available after the publication of this NPRM through the FHWA and the FTA websites, other public announcement avenues and the newsletters and websites of major stakeholder groups. Individuals wishing information but without access to these sources may contact the individuals listed above.
The structure of the meetings will emphasize brief presentations by the DOT staff regarding the content of the NPRM. A period for clarifying questions will be provided. Under current statutory and regulatory provisions, the DOT staff will not be permitted to engage in a substantive dialog regarding what the content of the NPRMs and the final regulations should be. Attendees wishing to express ideas and thoughts regarding the final content of the rules should direct those comments to the docket. Briefing sites will include: Boston, MA, Auditorium, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, June 9, 2000; Atlanta, GA, Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree Street, June 20, 2000; Washington, D.C., Marriott Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW, June 23, 2000; Chicago, IL, Holiday Inn Mart Plaza, 350 North Orleans Street, June 27, 2000; Denver, CO, Marriott City Center, 1701 California Street, June 30 , 2000; Dallas, TX, Hyatt Regency Hotel Dallas, 300 Reunion Boulevard, July 11, 2000; and, San Francisco, CA, Radisson Miyako, 1625 Post Street, July 19, 2000.
As part of the outreach process planned for these proposed rules, the FHWA/FTA will be conducting a national teleconference on June 15, 2000 from 1 to 4 p.m., e.t., through the auspices of the Center for Transportation and the Environment at North Carolina State University. The teleconference will be accessible through numerous downlink locations nationwide and further information can be obtained from Ms. Katie McDermott at
An overview of each of the three notices of proposed rulemakings (NPRMs) will be presented and the audience (remote and local) will have opportunities to ask questions and seek clarification of FHWA/FTA proposals. By sponsoring this teleconference it is
The FHWA and the FTA propose to update and revise the current regulation and guidance implementing the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
In this notice of proposed rulemaking, we are clearly communicating that our NEPA responsibilities include an affirmative duty to facilitate the development of transportation proposals which represent responsible stewardship of community and natural environmental resources. In the 13 years since the NEPA regulation was last issued, the nature of the highway and transit programs has evolved to reflect our country's changing transportation needs and the impact that the transportation network can have on a complex set of environmental, community, and economic considerations. What has not changed is the role of State and local officials and Federal land management agency decision makers to define transportation investment strategies, plan for a future transportation system that best reflects their community needs, and select and set priorities for transportation projects.
The NPRM was developed by an interagency Task Force of the FHWA and the FTA with input from other DOT modal agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other Federal agencies and the Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT. The Task Force reviewed all input received from the outreach process which is described below and through other sources that communicate regularly with U.S. DOT. In addition, input was provided from the field staff of the FHWA and the FTA.
Over the past thirteen years we have developed an increased understanding of effective environmental analysis, a greater commitment to prevention of adverse environmental impacts, and a realization of the increased value of integrated agency and public coordination. Given these developments, our role to ensure that transportation projects are developed through a more effective and collaborative NEPA process at the State, local, and Federal levels becomes that much more pivotal. Our environmental rule reflects the understanding that NEPA is an important tool for helping make transportation decisions, rather than justifying decisions already made. In addition, we believe that a more coordinated approach to planning and project development (the NEPA process plus additional project level actions needed to prepare for project implementation) will contribute to more effective and environmentally sound decisions regarding investment choices and trade-offs.
By including the environmental streamlining provision in TEA-21, section 1309 of Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 108 at 232, the Congress intended that transportation planning and environmental considerations be better coordinated and that project delivery schedules be improved through a process that is efficient, comprehensive, and streamlined. Growing awareness of the need for a Federal role that would oversee development of a coordinated environmental review process is tempered with congressional intent that State and local decisions be respected. The most important Federal role in the transportation decisionmaking process is one where the FHWA and the FTA would facilitate other Federal agencies' early involvement and participation in NEPA activities so that redundant processes are identified and avoided. We will, in our role as lead agencies, highlight opportunities to use NEPA as a mechanism to address statutory responsibilities at Federal, State, and local levels of government. During the TEA-21 outreach process, there has been very strong support from our transportation and environmental partners for a better managed NEPA process which reflects these basic features: coordination, flexibility, and efficiency.
For these reasons, it is clear that a fundamentally new approach to NEPA is needed, one that emphasizes strong environmental policy, collaborative program solving approaches involving all levels of government and the public early in the process, and integrated and streamlined coordination and decisionmaking processes. Proposed approaches are included in this notice of proposed rulemaking. This NPRM fully supports “protection and enhancement of communities and the natural environment,” one of five U.S. DOT strategic goals. Translating this strategic direction into day-to-day operations requires that appropriate changes be made to regulations and nonregulatory operating guidance.
Our strategy for regulatory development has three principal elements: (1) Outreach and listening to stakeholders; (2) developing improvements that will allow the FHWA, the FTA, States and metropolitan areas to demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving congressional intent and objectives; and (3) seeking ways to improve coordination and performance, both internally and with our Federal partner agencies.
We have used several venues to obtain feedback on how to improve the administration of NEPA. Of principal importance was the NEPA 25th Anniversary Workshop held in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1995. Participants included a diverse group of governmental and nongovernmental individuals representing transportation and community interests, as well as those interested in protecting the natural environment. The blueprint document that resulted from the NEPA Workshop underscores the need for a fundamentally new approach to NEPA, one that focuses on decisionmaking rather than compliance.
The FHWA and the FTA, in concert with the Office of the Secretary and other modal administrations within the U.S. DOT, developed and implemented an extensive public outreach process on all elements of the TEA-21. The process began shortly after the legislation was enacted on June 9, 1998, and various types of outreach activities have been underway since that time. The initial six-month Departmentwide outreach process included twelve regional forums and over 50 focus groups and workshops (63 FR 40330, July 28, 1998). The U.S. DOT heard from over 3,000 people including members of Congress, Governors and Mayors, other elected officials, transportation practitioners at all levels, community activists and environmentalists, freight shippers and suppliers, and other interested individuals. The input received was valuable and has helped us shape implementation strategy, guidance, and regulations.
With respect to the planning and environmental provisions of TEA-21, we learned a great deal through the twelve regional forums and focus group sessions and subsequently implemented a second, more focused phase of outreach which included issuing a discussion paper, “TEA-21 Planning and Environmental Provisions: Options for Discussion,” FHWA/FTA, February 1999. The content of the Options Paper reflected input received up to that time and built upon the existing statewide
This proposed rule will be one part of a widespread agency effort to provide clear and consistent guidance on how the NEPA process can be most effectively used to help applicants make transportation decisions which reflect a concern for social, economic, and environmental well-being. It provides the framework upon which we, along with State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and Federal land management agencies, can base our approach to transportation decisionmaking.
We recognize that a wide range of issues exist in the realm of transportation and the environment. Our outreach effort associated with TEA-21, as well as feedback to the Options Paper, have highlighted many areas of concern for which the FHWA and the FTA policy should be more clearly articulated. However, not all of these areas will be directly addressed as part of this rule. For many topics for which we feel regulatory treatment is unnecessary or inappropriate, we intend to issue a comprehensive package of materials to provide detailed, nonregulatory information on how to incorporate such considerations into the NEPA process. In addition, certain other topics will be the subject of individual, separate regulations or guidance.
The comprehensive package of informational materials is envisioned as a replacement both for the 1987 FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8a on environmental documents and the FTA (formerly Urban Mass Transportation Administration) Circular 5620.1
Further, we have been working with Federal environmental agencies to implement the environmental streamlining provisions of TEA-21. The results of those activities are described in the section-by-section analysis discussion later in this preamble.
The TEA-21 outreach effort and comments on the Options Paper have all helped guide us in developing this notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments on this NPRM are welcomed and will be taken into account prior to the issuance of a final regulation containing updated NEPA implementation requirements.
There are four additional rulemaking activities either underway or planned which relate closely to this notice of proposed rulemaking. These include: the joint FHWA/FTA rules on statewide and metropolitan planning and on section 4(f), and the FHWA rules on acquisition of right-of-way and decision-build contracting. The relationship with the statewide and metropolitan planning rulemaking is described below, and the TEA-21 provisions and input received through the Options Paper on the other three issue areas follows:
Concurrent with the release of this notice of proposed rulemaking, the U.S. DOT is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking to update and revise its statewide and metropolitan planning regulations (23 CFR part 450 and 49 CFR part 613). As proposed in these coordinated rulemaking actions, the statewide and metropolitan planning rule and the NEPA and transportation decisionmaking rules would both be moved to new parts: 1410 and 1420, respectively. This co-location is intended to underscore the integrated nature of transportation planning and the NEPA process.
We intend to ensure that the regulatory provisions governing statewide and metropolitan planning and NEPA work in a consistent and complementary fashion, and result in sound transportation decisions. We view the changes in TEA-21 as opportunities to improve and integrate planning and environmental processes to support more effective decisionmaking and it is in this context that both notices of proposed rulemaking were developed. It is our intent to establish consistency between the two regulations to allow our State and local transportation partners that choose to conduct social, economic, and environmental analysis at the planning stage to incorporate that analysis at the project development phase. This approach offers options for integrating project development efficiencies into the overall planning process, where States, MPOs, and transit agencies deem such action appropriate and desirable.
We propose to move the reference and citation for section 4(f)
The information within the proposed section 4(f) regulation has not changed in concept. However, new information has been added to bring the administration of section 4(f) evaluations up-to-date with FHWA and FTA programs such as Transportation Enhancements, Transit Enhancements, the Symms National Trail Program, etc. There has been little substantive change in the requirements of the section 4(f) regulation; rather the format of the information presented has been changed
The separation of the section 4(f) and NEPA procedures into separate regulations is not intended to fragment compliance with section 4(f) and NEPA. Our intent is to continue a fully integrated implementation under the unified and coordinated process provided by the NEPA procedures as an umbrella for addressing all relevant responsibilities, including section 4(f). Placing the two regulations in sequence within the Code of Federal Regulations, with cross references between them, is intended to communicate the continued integration of section 4(f) and the NEPA process.
Section 1301 of the TEA-21 allows the value of land acquired by a State or local government without Federal assistance to be credited to the State share of a federally-assisted project which uses that land. However, the law stipulated that the land acquisition must not influence the environmental assessment of the project, including the need to construct the project, the consideration of alternatives, and the selection of a specific location.
The FHWA considered, under a separate rulemaking, covering “Right-of-Way Program Administration” published as a final rule in the December 21, 1999,
Advance right-of-way acquisition was the subject of considerable debate during the TEA-21 outreach efforts. Several commenters including the Capital Area MPO in Albany, NY, argued that the advance acquisition of right-of-way in rapidly growing areas is desirable, cost effective and good policy. These commenters view land acquisition as environmentally neutral, in that unused land can be disposed of, often at a profit. Others, including the National Coalition to Defend NEPA, noted the inherent conflict between allowing advance right-of-way acquisition and corridor preservation initiatives, and the selection of a preferred alternative as part of the NEPA process. The National Coalition to Defend NEPA argues that purchase of land represents a commitment to a particular project location and that it, therefore, would influence the assessment of the project under NEPA.
Section 1307 of the TEA-21 permits a State or local transportation agency to award a design-build contract during project development provided that final design shall not commence before the NEPA process has been completed.
We have been concerned about design-build contracts (also called “turnkey” contracts) for federally-assisted projects being let before the NEPA process has been completed. To do so could give the appearance that the State or local transportation agency is fully committed to a single course of action, and that the NEPA process is simply a clearance exercise and not a true decisionmaking process. There may, however, be some situations in which design-build procurement can be structured to allow for the design-builders to work on an alternative emerging from the NEPA process. Our agencies recognize that the emerging interest in design-build contracting may warrant specific regulatory language or guidance addressing the relationship between design-build procurement and NEPA.
During the TEA-21 outreach efforts, some commenters suggested that design-build contracting provisions could include clauses that would preclude work on construction or the “building” of projects until after the NEPA Record of Decision
For highway projects, the FHWA's Office of Infrastructure is responsible for developing regulations which implement this TEA-21 provision. It is currently engaged in fact-finding and consultation among transportation partners including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and anticipates beginning the formal rulemaking process next year. Achieving a balance between realizing the fullest time-savings potential of design-build contracting and maintaining the integrity of the NEPA process will be the subject of considerable discussion during that rulemaking process.
Our agencies intend to adopt consistent policies on the NEPA-related aspects of the design-build issue for two reasons: (1) Transit projects should not have procedural disadvantages in comparison to highway projects, and (2) Federal transit law (49 U.S.C. 5304(e)) requires that the FTA and the FHWA conform their NEPA processes to each other's.
This section of the notice of proposed rulemaking includes a section-by-section analysis of the proposed rule on NEPA and incorporates summary information on comments received on the Options Paper. All comments on the Options Paper are contained in the docket. The comments are, of necessity, summarized in each of the relevant sections of the proposed rule and are intended to provide an overall perspective on the comments submitted to the FHWA and the FTA. Details on specific comments and input can be obtained by reviewing the materials in the docket.
The proposed regulations have been reordered as to content and organized into the following four subparts:
The following table highlights the reordering and organization for each proposed subpart:
This proposed subpart sets out the framework for the FHWA/FTA NEPA process. It complements and supplements the United States Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provisions that serve a similar function for the entire Federal government.
Current § 771.101 would be redesignated as § 1420.101 and revised to establish that the focus of the proposed regulation is to conduct a decisionmaking process for transportation projects that, under NEPA, integrates and streamlines compliance with all transportation and environmental laws applicable to decisionmaking during project development. Reference is made to the regulations for transportation planning as being a contributing factor to this decisionmaking process.
The proposed § 1420.103 does not appear in the current regulation. It clarifies that this regulation is to be read as a supplement to the CEQ's governmentwide regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and contains specific provisions for Federal surface transportation actions under our jurisdiction. Further, the proposed section acknowledges that, in addition to issuing revised NEPA regulations, we will conduct and fulfill our responsibilities under NEPA using any combination of approaches including, but not limited to, nonregulatory guidance, training, and technical assistance.
The CEQ regulations cover regulatory definition and general environmental procedural requirements (
The proposed section revises current §§ 771.109 and 771.111, Applicability and responsibilities and Early coordination, public involvement, and project development, respectively. The language appearing in paragraph (a) of the proposed section is a shortened version of paragraph (a) of current § 771.109. Paragraph (b) in the proposed section is essentially the existing criteria for allowable segmentation of projects, taken from paragraph (f) of § 771.111.
Proposed section § 1420.107 is to be read in close conjunction with the subsequent proposed § 1420.109. Section 1420.107 would establish the goals of the FHWA/FTA transportation decisionmaking process. The goals are drawn from a variety of statutory mandates, including NEPA itself, and provisions of the various transportation laws that authorize our programs. The NEPA process is a partnership among Federal, State, and local governments and, at times, private entities. Our intent in this section is to establish a common understanding within the partnership of the goals to be achieved through the NEPA process.
The FHWA and the FTA reaffirm their role as lead Federal agencies, and underscore their responsibility to manage the NEPA process with the objective of achieving these goals. This responsibility extends to ensuring that Federal NEPA decisions pay appropriate deference to State and local decisions made in good faith and not coerce a particular Federal point of view. State and local decisions made with full consideration of a broad range of social, economic, and environmental factors, and with the advice of appropriate Federal and other State resource agencies (i.e., the agencies responsible under law for the protection or management of natural and community resources) and with public involvement are those most likely to advance the NEPA goals.
Proposed § 1420.109 would replace portions of current § 771.105, Policy. The proposed section sets forth our basic policy regarding how the decisionmaking process for surface transportation projects is to be conducted . The proposed section states the intent of our agencies to use the NEPA process as the overarching procedural construct under which the varied legal requirements, environmental issues, and public interests relevant to the transportation decision are brought to bear; hence the term “NEPA umbrella” is used to describe the concept. The consideration of a proposed action under NEPA concludes with a decision made in the best overall public interest: one that balances the need for safe and efficient transportation with the project's social, economic, environmental benefits and impacts, and the attainment of relevant environmental protection goals.
Experience in administering the NEPA process has shown that many practitioners do not fully understand or practice our approach of using the NEPA process as an umbrella for integrating their studies, reviews, or consultations and satisfying all relevant requirements in a single, integrated decisionmaking process. Instead, many have chosen to approach the various requirements as obstacles or hurdles to be addressed in a less than comprehensive fashion. Many delayed projects or failed processes can be traced back to a disintegrated and disconnected approach to meeting NEPA and other requirements. This section of the regulation is intended to clarify the preferred approach and explicitly demonstrate the multitude of factors that can influence Federal decisionmaking. Setting forth these expectations will contribute to a better, more efficient and timely NEPA process, one that is envisioned in the TEA-21 and highlighted in its section 1309 on environmental streamlining.
Subsequent to the previous regulatory revision in 1987, the 1994 Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice was issued to address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of Federal government programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations. This section would be added to present regulatory language from our policy on environmental justice that is articulated in the DOT Order 5610.2 on Environmental Justice (62 FR 18377, April 15, 1997).
This section would present our policy regarding NEPA's mandate that Federal agencies, to the fullest extent possible, use all practicable means to restore and enhance, and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment.
Our policy towards correcting adverse impacts is contained in the hierarchical but not necessarily sequential concepts of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts, and in the evaluation of environmental enhancements. The policy is consistent with the CEQ's approach to mitigation presented in 40 CFR 1500.2(f) and elsewhere, and would revise the language concerning mitigation of adverse impacts currently provided at § 771.105(d). The proposed language reflects also the broadened Federal funding eligibility for enhancement measures, such as transportation enhancement activities and transit enhancements, enacted with ISTEA and TEA-21. The section would address the eligibility for Federal funding (to the extent authorized by law), of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts, or to provide or implement enhancements.
Our general responsibility for ensuring that mitigation is carried out would be presented in paragraph (d) of the proposed section, NEPA Commitments. These provisions would be redesignated from § 771.109(b) to streamline the subject matter of the new regulations; the original text would be revised to detail the responsibility for implementing mitigation measures and environmental enhancements that resulted from commitments made in the FHWA/FTA NEPA process.
This subpart would group together a set of provisions aimed at improving the NEPA process, either on individual projects or on a programwide basis, so that transportation decisions can be made in a timely and environmentally sensitive manner. It would respond in part to the TEA-21 chapter on flexibility and streamlining, which addresses major investment study integration (section 1308) and contains the provisions on environmental streamlining (section 1309).
This section would clarify the relationship of the transportation
Our agencies feel it is essential to clarify the nature of the linkage between planning and the NEPA process in this NPRM. The transportation planning process needs to be better coordinated with the project development/NEPA process so that transportation planning decisions can ultimately support the development of the individual projects which arise from transportation plans. During the TEA-21 outreach efforts, opinions varied over whether regulatory language or guidance should be used to integrate planning and programming activities, but most commenters agreed that the linkage between planning and project development needs to be cultivated. Many commenters, including the AASHTO and many State DOTs, opposed any regulatory language which would place requirements of NEPA into the planning process. Others, including the National Coalition to Defend NEPA, pointed to the need for the core values of the NEPA process to be incorporated into the planning process and suggested that regulatory language is in order.
The Options Paper discussed the notion that the establishment of purpose and need and the broad scale evaluation of alternatives can often be best accomplished during the planning process. How to frame the statement of purpose and need so that it is neither too narrow nor too broad is a continuing challenge. If too narrowly conceived, purpose and need can constrain the process with an unreasonably limited set of possible solutions; if too broadly constructed purpose and need may lead to an unmanageably large set of alternatives that unnecessarily bog down the process. Options to provide clearer direction regarding what constitutes an acceptable statement of purpose and need are being explored and we invite specific comments on this issue.
There was considerable support for allowing States and MPOs the option of addressing purpose and need in the planning process, and even to initiate the NEPA process at that time. This would allow stakeholders to conduct broad ranging planning and subregional studies, reach agreement on purpose and need during the planning process, and benefit from such analyses by using them directly in the NEPA process. There was also strong support for establishing a point during the NEPA process at which the participants would discuss and concur in a statement of purpose and need.
However, a considerable number of commenters, including many State DOTs and MPOs, objected to any mandate for the determination of purpose and need during planning and argued that it would burden the planning process and add considerable delay by seeking a determination of need at an inappropriate juncture.
The Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) recommended a two-stage NEPA process where the first phase would evaluate the range of social, fiscal, and environmental costs and benefits of various alternative visions for a corridor or community. Based on this evaluation, an initial statement of purpose and need would be articulated. This purpose and need statement would be very broad, an articulation of the goals for the area already arrived at through the planning process, for example. The STPP proposed that a wide field of inquiry would be maintained at this stage. Subsequent to this phase of evaluation, and once a detailed review of options is complete, an agency would have the information necessary to propose a revised, more specific statement of purpose and need. It would be this revised statement of purpose and need that would serve as the basis for a detailed review of alternatives under NEPA. Under both phases, the choice of a project purpose would be subject to public input.
The Environmental Law and Policy Center argued for the allowance of lower-cost and lesser impact project alternatives to be selected through the NEPA process even if they do not fully meet the stated purpose and need. Both the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Interior argued for broadly defined purpose and need during planning to ensure that a full range of modal alternatives are considered.
The National Coalition to Defend NEPA expressed concern over the development of purpose and need during planning. It felt this could prematurely preclude options and alternatives and argued that, until the DEIS is completed, insufficient information is available with which to make such decisions. In short, it is concerned that defining purpose and need so early (in planning) could have the effect of “setting in stone” projects without adequate consideration of alternatives.
Commenters asked for examples, best practices and information on issues related to purpose and need determination, and there was general consensus that improvements in defining purpose and need are warranted. They felt that the difficulties articulated in the Options Paper relating to broad versus narrow statements of purpose and need are indeed real problems and that our agencies could provide useful guidance in this area.
We intend to provide continuity between the systems planning and project development processes so that the results of analysis performed during the planning stage, including project purpose and need, alternatives, public input, and environmental concerns are brought forward into project development. The proposed integration of the planning and project development process embodied in this regulation would enable a more broadly defined statement of purpose and need to be addressed at appropriate points in the integrated process.
There has also been much discussion of the standing given to planning decisions on alternatives to be advanced or dropped from consideration. The proposed regulation envisions an active discussion of this issue during scoping, with the involvement of the responsible planning agencies (
We propose to provide more detailed treatment on the subjects of purpose and
Examples of issues that might be covered include: the further consideration of alternatives that may not fully meeting traditional concepts of purpose and need; more broadly defined purpose and need statements during the planning stage so that a full range of modal alternatives are considered; an alternative analysis that examines non-construction alternatives that use transportation demand strategies; and flexibility to encourage the consideration of alternatives which may have lower than originally desired levels of transportation service if there are cost, time, and impact savings that justify the lower levels of transportation service.
We are soliciting comments on a suggestion that specifically addressing the requirements of the major investment study in the planning process would enhance that process by forging a clearer link between the planning and the project-level NEPA processes, leading to greater streamlining at the project level.
This new section would be added to reflect the requirements of section 1309 of the TEA-21. The basic premise of section 1309 of the TEA-21 was to address concerns relating to delays, unnecessary duplication of efforts and costs associated with the development of highway and transit projects. Section 1309 also stipulates that nothing in section 1309 shall affect the applicability of NEPA or any other federal environmental statute or affect the responsibility of any federal offices to comply with or enforce such statutes. The rule responds to the TEA-21 environmental streamlining provisions by establishing a process intended to coordinate Federal agency involvement in major highway and transit projects with the goals of identifying decision points and potential conflicts as early as possible, integrating the NEPA process as early as possible, encouraging the full and early participation of all relevant agencies, and establishing coordinated time schedules for agencies to act on a project.
This proposed section of the regulation establishes the “coordinated environmental review process” which section 1309 of the TEA-21 directed the Secretary of Transportation to develop and implement. Paragraph (a) lays out the elements of this coordinated environmental review process, providing a substantive but flexible set of actions to be taken by the U.S. DOT in cooperation with the applicant to ensure that the goals of section 1309 are met. An important element of this coordinated environmental review process is reaching closure among the Federal agencies on the scoping process. This paragraph calls for agency concurrence at the end of scoping, which could take various forms depending upon the mutual understandings and agreements of the Federal agencies. In the event of nonconcurrence, this paragraph provides also for means to resolve interagency disagreements at the earliest possible time. Paragraph (b) describes the process for applying the coordinated environmental review process to State level environmental reviews. Paragraph (c) would implement the provisions of the statute which allow the Secretary to decide not to apply section 1309 to the preparation of an environmental assessment. Paragraph (d) would implement the CEQ NEPA regulation provisions on paperwork reduction and clarifies that the NEPA documentation need not explicitly contain a finding that a particular impact does not exist. For example, if the environmental inventory revealed that there were no wetlands in the project area, a specific finding indicating that the project would have no impacts on wetlands would not be required. This provision would help to focus NEPA documents on important issues in accordance with the CEQ NEPA regulations' provision on paperwork reduction.
One consistent theme that emerged through the outreach process pointed to the need for early and up-front involvement of Federal agencies in the NEPA process and for close coordination and cooperation among the Federal agencies throughout the process. The State DOTs, the MPOs, the National Association of County Engineers, the U.S. EPA, and the U.S. Department of Interior all felt that Federal agency involvement is critical to successful implementation of the environmental streamlining provisions. They also recommend that our field offices and the resource agencies' field offices throughout the country have the authority to participate in, review, and respond to issues associated with the NEPA process.
Inasmuch as stakeholder sentiments echoed a need for early collaboration and close coordination with all interested and affected parties, they also strongly reinforced the need for flexibility at the State and local levels for implementing the goals of streamlining. A “one-size-fits-all” regulatory approach was soundly rejected by an overwhelming majority of stakeholders, other Federal agencies, practitioners, project sponsors, and field offices.
We believe that successful implementation of environmental streamlining must be based upon a number of principles, and are pursuing a process that will ensure effective environmental decisionmaking in a timely manner. Both transportation and resource agencies must improve their environmental review processes. The U.S. DOT will provide national leadership on environmental streamlining, and is working with CEQ and headquarters offices of the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. National Park Service, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and others to obtain commitments to better decisionmaking. The framework for this commitment to the environment and to streamlining the environmental process is set forth in the national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was entered into by the aforementioned agencies in July 1999.
We are proposing to implement the environmental streamlining requirements largely outside of the regulatory process through the following means: (1) U.S. DOT memoranda of understanding with Federal or State agencies; (2) establishment of dispute resolution processes; (3) streamlining pilot efforts; (4) authorization of the U.S. DOT to approve State DOT or transit agency requests to reimburse Federal agencies for expenses associated with meeting expedited time frames; and (5) establishing performance measures to evaluate and measure success in both
The central effort on the national MOU has been to craft an agreement among agencies which demonstrates a commitment to key principles and upon which further agreements can be executed at a local or regional level to address more specific issues. Establishing and maintaining clear and frank communication has been at the heart of the national MOU and would be the primary guide to further interagency agreements.
The process of developing the national MOU was aimed chiefly at responding to the concerns regarding early and up-front involvement of Federal agencies in the NEPA process and for close coordination and cooperation between Federal agencies throughout the process. We are working with representatives of other Federal agencies at the headquarters and field levels to develop a common understanding of the environmental streamlining provision and a coordinated implementation strategy. The development of the national MOU has followed the suggestion of AASHTO, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), and many State DOTs that the MOU include broad principles of agreement on how the NEPA process would be carried out but that project-specific or program-specific MOU's need to be developed at the State, regional, or local level, based upon these broad principles, and tailored to specific local circumstances or projects.
Procedures for resolving conflict at the national, regional, and State levels are under development. Mediation methods and systems for alternative dispute resolution are being developed and training programs in these methods will be established. This approach will enable parties to seek timely intervention over disputes during the project development process, as a way to circumvent and minimize the number of environmentally unacceptable projects that may otherwise be referred to CEQ for resolution, by either reestablishing consensus on the need for the project or reaching consensus to drop the project entirely. Alternative dispute resolution strategies will be defined so that they can be effectively applied to improve institutional relationships among parties or to resolve conflicts surrounding specific project issues.
On the matter of dispute resolution procedures, commenters made three key points. They felt that explicit time frames for document reviews are needed and should be agreed to, to the fullest extent possible, up-front in the process. Secondly, they supported an approach where the parties to the MOU agree, at an early stage, on the level of information and detail that is needed at various steps in the NEPA process. Resource agencies expressed frustration with the timing and level of detail of information that they are asked to consider and act upon, and State and local implementing agencies expressed frustration due to uncertainties over what specific information and level of detail would be required of them by the Federal resource, regulatory and permitting agencies. A third point made by many stakeholders was that procedures on coordination, documentation, and communications should be agreed to as early as possible. They felt that this would help to resolve differences that arise at various points in the process and which can contribute to delays.
One specific topic suggested for pilot projects was from the North Carolina DOT and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, which suggested the testing of alternative approaches to gaining interagency cooperation during the NEPA process. The Virginia DOT suggested that pilot project efforts should be directed at finding ways to resolve differences between Federal agencies. A third suggestion was that pilot projects should test approaches to providing States flexibility in carrying out the NEPA process.
Not all commenters supported the concept of pilot projects, however, and the National Coalition to Defend NEPA questions the legal authority of our agencies to conduct pilot projects and cautioned against using pilot projects to “back-door” the NEPA process. It was also concerned that pilot efforts not only involve partnership development between Federal and non-Federal partners and resource permitting agencies, but also include groups representing the public as well.
Based on the input received on the issue of pilot efforts, we are not proposing to establish a formal process for pilots at this time, through regulation or any other means. Instead, we will participate in pilot efforts on a case-by-case basis. These pilot efforts might be focused on a single project or on improving a particular process, but would not include the delegation of Federal NEPA responsibilities to States that was considered but not enacted in the TEA-21. We will continue to coordinate closely with the U.S. EPA, the AASHTO and others who are developing pilot efforts, and will actively assist in sharing information on efforts including lessons learned.
The agency reimbursement language in the environmental streamlining provisions of the TEA-21 offers an opportunity to partially overcome an historic obstacle, that Federal agencies cannot involve themselves in the process early enough or regularly enough due to resource constraints within agencies. The TEA-21 includes specific conditions allowing States and transit agencies to use Federal transportation funds for reimbursement of expenses related to work done to meet the expedited time schedules required by section 1309 of the TEA-21. In addition, other statutory authorities exist for agency reimbursement, and we are exploring the full range of options for reimbursing agencies through any of the available authorities. Furthermore, approaches to developing collaborative efforts with other Federal agencies are being explored in order to develop model reimbursement agreements, and to facilitate the implementation of such agreements by Federal agency field staff.
Due to the need for flexibility and the different practices and needs of various State and resource agencies, it was determined that nonregulatory guidance would most appropriately address the use of Federal transportation funds for reimbursing costs associated with streamlining. Hence, we engaged participation by many other affected Federal agencies to develop a single guidance package that would be useful to transportation and environmental agencies, including State DOT's and transit agencies and Federal, State, and local resource agencies. The breadth of situations that might be addressed under this provision was such that the guidance does not try to anticipate them all. Rather, it reinforces the Federal government's belief in effective interagency coordination and
There were a number of comments on this TEA-21 provision and a suggestion from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association that the principles to apply to reimbursement should include a provision that reimbursement for Federal agency activities to expedite NEPA reviews must be linked to a specific project, set of tasks, and person or position to be involved on behalf of the Federal agency. Others, including the Nevada and Missouri DOTs, felt that reimbursing an agency for working on one project over another is not a good approach. Reimbursing agencies for doing their jobs, it was argued, would introduce a bias into the NEPA process which would result in an expedited review or enhanced level of participation on some projects over others.
Our agencies have a joint effort underway to evaluate the timeliness and the effectiveness of the NEPA process at arriving at decisions that are in the best overall public interest. Further information on this effort can be obtained from the FHWA.
Section 1420.205 would be added to establish in regulation the FHWA/FTA practice of using programmatic environmental approvals as one way of addressing recurring situations in a streamlined manner.
This practice has been especially effective with categorical exclusions for meeting the NEPA requirements in uncomplicated and non-controversial situations. One example of this are programmatic categorical exclusion approvals in which FHWA and a State DOT established a set of environmental impact thresholds, which, if not exceeded, allow the State DOT to apply the categorical exclusion approval without a project specific review by FHWA. Periodically, the FHWA reviews a sample of projects after-the-fact to ensure that the approval was appropriately applied. Other examples of programmatic approvals include section 4(f) approvals for minor uses of parkland and approval to delegate certain USDOT responsibilities under the recently issued regulations implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The proposed section explicitly recognizes the appropriateness of programmatic approaches for compliance with NEPA and related statutes, but does not specify the types of actions for which programmatic approaches would be created. Programmatic approaches to meeting the NEPA requirements which would not directly involve project level Federal approvals would be subject to periodic process reviews to ensure that they are being properly applied. This would enable the Federal agencies to focus limited resources on more problematic project-level decisions and to maintain a quality assurance role for projects with beneficial or de minimis environmental impacts. There was general support for such an approach in comments on the Options Paper. We invite comments on public notice and interagency coordination processes appropriate for making programmatic approvals.
This new proposed section would establish an internal responsibility for our agencies to employ appropriate quality management methods to assure that the NEPA responsibilities are carried out in a competent and timely manner. Such a process is intended to streamline the process by institutionalizing lessons learned throughout the administration of our programs and NEPA so that mistakes are not repeated and innovative approaches are fully implemented.
The requirements in the current regulation for legal sufficiency review of Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS) and prior concurrence of the Headquarters on certain FEISs would be incorporated into this proposed section. These processes have proven helpful in assuring the quality of analysis, coordination, and documentation and can prevent costly and timely lawsuits and conflicts. As proposed, the nature of legal sufficiency review and the threshold for requiring prior concurrence at Headquarters would not be specified in regulation, but would be the subject of internal orders.
This new section would be added to establish the procedures for processing and approving alternate procedures for complying with this regulation. This would give us the flexibility to partner with CEQ and State DOTs or transit agencies on NEPA reinvention efforts that achieve the goals of the NEPA process by using alternate methods or procedures that are more in tune with and supportive of non-Federal decisionmaking requirements.
In 1993, the U.S. DOT National Performance Review effort recommended that the NEPA procedures of the various modes be blended into a single process. Efforts to accomplish this unified procedure were purposely delayed until after passage of the surface transportation reauthorization which became TEA-21. Recent discussions within the U.S. DOT are now pointing toward a dual effort, one element of which would cover the entire department, the other of which is this proposed regulation covering just the FHWA and the FTA. To advance the first element, U.S. DOT would revise the U.S. DOT Order on NEPA to update the departmentwide statement of environmental policy and to remove barriers to collaboration between the U.S. DOT modes on NEPA issues. It would provide authority for one U.S. DOT agency to use the NEPA procedures of another U.S. DOT agency or to act as the agent for another U.S. DOT agency when a situation warrants. This proposed section clarifies in regulation that the internal order is considered legally sufficient to provide these authorities. The further action at the departmental level to amend the U.S. DOT Order on NEPA is under development.
Most Options Paper commenters, including State DOTs, MPOs, associations, and authorities supported a coordinated approach to NEPA within the U.S. DOT and its modal administrations. There was strong support for the elimination of differences in how the FHWA and the FTA manage the NEPA process and for a consolidation of these approaches in the updated regulation. In addition, there was strong support from New York DOT, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association and others for the elimination of provisions duplicating the CEQ regulations, which many thought would lead to a streamlined regulation. Finally, many commenters supported the notion of the FHWA and the FTA having strong oversight over the NEPA process. Equally important, commenters noted, is that there be a true partnership between Federal agencies and State and local agencies.
This proposed section would contain the provision currently found at 23 CFR 771.131.
This proposed subpart describes the requirements of carrying out the NEPA process, including establishing the roles of various governmental agencies and the public in the process, determining the appropriate level of environmental documentation under NEPA, and laying out the procedural requirements for processing NEPA documents. It complements and supplements the CEQ regulations that provide the general NEPA framework for the entire Federal government. In addition to the regulatory requirements described in this subpart, the FHWA's and FTA's comprehensive package of informational materials will provide detailed nonregulatory approaches to many of the subjects herein.
This is a new section that addresses some of the items currently contained within § 771.109. Paragraph (a) of the proposed section utilizes the current CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) to define terms and set forth concepts, such as: Lead and cooperating agencies; the relationship between Federal agencies, applicants, and contractors; and enhancing the efficiency of the NEPA process through cooperation between Federal, State, and local agencies.
Paragraph (b) would clarify in regulation current practice for administering the NEPA process for projects implemented directly by the Federal government on Federal lands. Namely, it is a shared responsibility of the U.S. DOT and the Federal land management agency. The precise nature of the responsibility is specified in agreements or standard operating procedures.
In the previous regulations, the provision in 23 CFR 771.109(c) on agency responsibilities is largely repetitive of what is also found in CEQ's regulations on NEPA. For this rulemaking effort, we are reluctant to propose regulatory language which simply restates existing sections of another regulation, and would streamline this section accordingly. Paragraph (c) of the proposed section addresses the use of contractors in the NEPA process for contracting for environmental and engineering services. The proposed rule allows a State to procure the services of a consultant, under a single contract, for environmental impact assessment and for subsequent post-NEPA engineering and design work in accordance with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 112(g), as amended by the TEA-21.
Section 1205 of the TEA-21 allows a State to procure under a single contract, the services of a consultant to prepare environmental documents for a project, and to perform subsequent final engineering and design work on the project. This would only occur if the State conducted a review assessing the objectivity of the environmental documentation. Experience has shown that, although on many projects consultants do prepare the bulk of the detailed analyses and NEPA documentation, this process involves close oversight by the State or local public agency and by the lead Federal agency. It is the ongoing responsibility of our agencies to ensure that all consultant work reflected in the NEPA process and documentation meets appropriate standards of objectivity and professionalism.
The contracting provisions were included in the TEA-21 to clarify our agencies' positions on the use of contractors for environmental and engineering design work for Federal transportation projects, and were chiefly aimed at addressing concerns of potential conflict of interest on the part of the consultants.
The U.S. DOT believes that more detailed nonregulatory guidance will best address the specifics of disclosure statements, other requirements of 40 CFR 1505.5(c), and the requirement for a review of the objectivity of the environmental document.
Generally speaking, commenters on the Options Paper felt that current level of oversight and review is sufficient, and that additional documentation to ensure objectivity is unnecessary. The EPA suggested the need for the development of Federal procedures for monitoring, investigating, and resolving conflicts that might result from this TEA-21 provision.
The proposed section would revise the current § 771.111 (a) through (e). The proposed section would simplify the current section by focusing on key terms and concepts that are the basis of an integrated decisionmaking process conducted under the NEPA umbrella. For example, the proposed section features the term “interagency coordination” to supplement the current “early coordination” in order to better express the collaborative intent of the FHWA/FTA NEPA process. The proposed section provides an explanation of the role and function of interagency coordination in the NEPA process. The term “interested agencies” would be added. The proposed section briefly outlines a procedure for notifying affected Federal, State, and local entities of the availability of approved documents for classes of action other than an EIS.
Scoping and early coordination can set the tone, positive or negative, for subsequent project development activities. Experience has shown that many of the conflicts which delay Federal approvals of highway and transit projects are somewhat predictable, and might be better anticipated and managed by using the scoping process as an early warning system. In addition, the development of interest-based negotiating and collaborative problem solving skills can help to craft implementable solutions. Two possible solutions emerged through the outreach process that could assist Federal agencies and applicants in performing more effective project scoping. One approach to the scoping of complex projects is that agencies agree on review schedules, but only after sufficient information on issues has emerged to allow them to gauge the required level of effort for their respective agencies. Another approach might make the scoping process, as part of an aggressive, high visibility project management role by our agencies as the lead Federal agenc(ies), a mechanism for identifying the issues, and agreeing on roles, time frames and methodologies associated with advancing the project, and possibly memorializing that agreement in a project MOU.
Both program reviews and feedback from stakeholders indicate that the FHWA and the FTA need to take a stronger leadership role in the NEPA process. Commenters including the National Coalition to Defend NEPA, the AASHTO, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and others reinforced this point in their comments on the Options Paper. These groups said that the FHWA and the FTA staff should attend meetings and serve as conflict resolution agents and mediators between other agencies. Also, they told us that we should provide information, such as, handbooks, best practices on scoping, and training for practitioners. As was the case in many areas, stakeholders including MPOs, State DOTs and others feel that much progress can be made in better integrating environmental and other considerations into the planning process through training, examples of where new approaches are working, handbooks and other useful materials.
Many of the detailed considerations of the scoping process are outside the
Current § 771.111(h) would be redesignated as § 1420.305. It remains relatively unchanged for State DOTs except that the separate requirements specific to the FHWA and the FTA programs would be deleted; and new references specific to public involvement procedures, notification requirements, and accommodations for those with disabilities would be added. A requirement would be added to specifically ascertain if public involvement is warranted whenever a reevaluation is being conducted. Also a minimum 45-day public comment period would be established whenever public involvement procedures are initially adopted or revised.
The proposed rule also aims to consolidate requirements of our two agencies for public involvement so that the U.S. DOT can offer a more consistent approach on this subject. Based upon comments to the Options Paper, there was resounding support for a consistent approach to public involvement requirements between the FHWA and the FTA and this was cited by the National Coalition to Defend NEPA as one way to make the planning process more accessible and understandable to the public. This consolidation may mean that some transit agencies may have to formalize their public involvement procedures through board adoption, or revise their procedures to ensure their applicability to the NEPA process. The FTA does not expect to find many transit agencies without existing adopted procedures applicable to project development, but invites comment on this concern. We recognize the importance of public involvement to informed decisionmaking, and have issued a number of publications which provide nonregulatory guidance on how to increase the effectiveness of applicants' public involvement efforts.
The new § 1420.305(d) recognizes the need for public involvement on certain re-evaluations where the elapsed time may have altered public expectations.
Current § 771.113 would be redesignated as § 1420.307 and revised. The proposed section would clarify the circumstances in which the FHWA/FTA would not approve initiation and funding for certain activities, such as, final design activities. The proposed section would encourage compliance with the requirements of all applicable environmental laws, regulations, executive orders, and other related requirements be demonstrated prior to approval of the final environmental documents or categorical exclusion (CE) designation. Conditions under which agencies responsible for metropolitan and statewide planning would be notified in order to satisfy the planning and programming requirements of proposed 23 CFR part 1410 would be identified.
However, under the NPRM the FHWA and the FTA would not prevent State and local governments and private entities from taking certain actions that are “at risk” of being rendered useless by the final NEPA decision. Such actions include final design or land acquisition prior to NEPA approval, but do not include those that would have an adverse impact, such as, demolition or construction. The FHWA and the FTA would view at risk activities that actually substantially harm environment as so subverting the NEPA process that we would inform applicants that the action would be ineligible for FHWA or FTA financial assistance. The FHWA and the FTA would not finance such “at risk” actions, and would not allow their decisions to be influenced by the actions taken by others. For projects that will be federally-funded, the present regulation prohibits final design and land acquisition (with certain limited exceptions) prior to the completion of the NEPA process. The enforcement of this prohibition has been confounded by the fact that specific funding sources, especially for smaller projects, are often not identified until late in project development. Hence, the applicability of the Federal requirements that attach only to Federal funding sources is not yet determined at the time the “at risk” activities are initiated.
We are considering issuing guidance on how to handle such situations, especially in terms of disclosure responsibilities.
We propose to clarify that full compliance with the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) is required prior to the
We believe that this proposed change is allowed under current regulations. While the conformity rule requires that a project come from a conforming plan and transportation improvement program (TIP) before final NEPA approval, the rule does not explicitly specify that the project must be in a conforming plan and TIP in order to initiate the NEPA process. In fact, 40 CFR 93.126, table 2, identifies as exempt, “engineering to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed alternatives to that action.” We feel that this is an important distinction that may help to improve the quality of the NEPA process leading to more effective, efficient, and environmentally sound judgments, without compromising the planning process and air quality analysis.
We believe that the emissions impacts of the project should be considered as early as possible and continue to encourage the inclusion of projects in the plan and TIP conformity analysis as early as feasible prior to the completion of the NEPA process where it is feasible. Earlier inclusion of the project in the plan and TIP is beneficial for the overall development of the plan and TIP because regional analysis is used as a long term indicator of the area's emissions impacts and associated problems. Early analysis of projects in the plan and TIP allows a more comprehensive long term assessment of how emissions impacts can be minimized, whether through changes in the timing of projects or changes to the composition of the plan and TIP.
However, a major problem with this approach is that it is counterproductive to corridor planning, prejudges alternatives and can limit thorough exploration of all feasible alternatives throughout the project development process. It can be counterproductive to, rather than supportive of, good long term transportation systems planning in certain circumstances. The reason for this is that in order for a project to be included in the regional plan and TIP and regional analysis prior to
It is important to note that, under this proposal, preliminary development of new projects could proceed during a conformity lapse, since such activities would not need to meet conformity requirements. However, final NEPA documents on new projects could not be approved under this proposal until a new conforming plan and TIP are in place.
We believe the frequency requirements for conformity are sufficient to ensure that full emissions impacts of the projects are accounted for before projects move into the final design; therefore, long term risks are minimal and the projects must be included in the regional conformity emissions analysis prior to the completion of NEPA. The regional emissions analysis and conformity determinations can be made as frequently as once a year, but at a minimum at least every three years; therefore, it is reasonable to allow environmental reviews and the NEPA process to be initiated without the project being included in the conformity analysis.
Current § 771.115 would be redesignated as § 1420.309 and the text would remain the same, except for the addition of certain intercity railroad and intermodal actions.
The proposed § 1430.311 would make several changes from the list of CEs in the current § 771.117 to reflect changes in the FHWA and the FTA programs since 1987. Modal limitations would be eliminated wherever possible. In addition, the CEs would be reordered and regrouped so that similar actions are listed together. The CEs would continue to be organized into two major groupings: those in paragraph (c) that require no further U.S. DOT agency approval, and those in paragraph (d) that require a written demonstration that the CE is appropriate. Paragraph (c) would clarify the need for NEPA approval by the U.S. DOT agency for listed CEs to which other environmental laws (
The proposed changes in CEs in paragraph (c) would be as follows:
Paragraph (c)(1) (non-construction activities) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(1), (c)(20), and part of (c)(16) without substantive change. It would add designations to the National Highway System to the list.
Paragraph (c)(2) (resurfacing) would move part of the text of current § 771.117(d)(1) to paragraph (c). Experience has shown that simple resurfacing of an existing pavement does not require additional written information for a CE determination.
Paragraph (c)(3) (routine maintenance) is not explicitly covered in the current § 771.117, but it is an important program activity, especially for transit with the re-definition of preventive maintenance as a capital expense.
Paragraph (c)(4) (ITS elements) is not explicitly covered in the text of current § 771.117. Installation of isolated ITS elements is proposed for paragraph (c), but an areawide coordination of multiple ITS elements that would have greater impact on the transportation system is proposed for paragraph (d)(2).
Paragraph (c)(5) (safety programs) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(4) and would add a current CE of the Federal Railroad Administration related to safety.
Paragraph (c)(6) (support facility improvements) would incorporate the current § 771.117(c)(12), but would extend it to cover toll facilities, control centers, and vehicle test centers, facilities that are similar in size and activity to those in the current CE.
Paragraph (c)(7) (carpool programs) uses a defined term to incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(13) except that carpool activities requiring land acquisition and construction (such as new parking lots) would be excluded and covered in paragraph (d)(6).
Paragraph (c)(8) (emergency repairs) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(9), but extends it to cover modes other than highways.
Paragraph (c)(9) (operating assistance) would incorporate the second part of the text of current § 771.117(c)(16) without substantive change.
Paragraph (c)(10) (vehicle acquisition) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(17) without substantive change.
Paragraph (c)(11) (purchase and lease of equipment) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(19), but would extend it to cover leases and the capital cost of contracting for transit services.
Paragraph (c)(12) (vehicle rehabilitation) would incorporate the current § 771.117(c)(14), but would extend it to cover conversions to alternative fuels.
Paragraph (c)(13) (track maintenance) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(18), but would extend it to cover wayside systems in addition to tracks and railbeds.
Paragraph (c)(14) (bicycle-pedestrian facilities) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(3) except that bicycle and pedestrian projects requiring land acquisition and construction (such as bike paths on new right-of-way) would be excluded and covered in paragraph (d)(19).
Paragraph (c)(15) (ADA accessibility) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(15) without substantive change.
Paragraph (c)(16) (signing, etc.) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(8) without substantive change.
Paragraph (c)(17) (property management) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(2), (5), and (11), and similar property management activities under the transit program. In addition, disposal of excess property would be moved from § 771.117(d)(6) because experience has shown that the sale or transfer of property does not have significant impact in and of itself, and the U.S. DOT agency does not have the statutory authority to control the subsequent use of property after it has been sold by the applicant.
Paragraph (c)(18) (transportation enhancements) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(7) and (10), and would add other transportation enhancement activities and transit enhancements to the list.
Paragraph (c)(19) (noise walls) would incorporate the current § 771.117(c)(6) without substantive change.
Paragraph (c)(20) (mitigation banking) would be added due to the transportation enhancement provisions and changes in the mitigation policies of Federal resource agencies that allow or encourage this form of mitigation.
The proposed changes in CEs in paragraph (d) would be as follows:
Paragraph (d)(1) (highway rehabilitation) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(d)(1) except that simple resurfacing is now proposed to be moved to paragraph (c) and would not require a written CE demonstration.
Paragraph (d)(2) (operational improvements) would incorporate part of the text of current § 771.117(d)(2), with clarification through examples of the ITS systems that would be covered.
Paragraph (d)(3) (safety improvements) would incorporate parts of the text of current § 771.117(d)(2) and (3) without substantive change. It would add safety-related programs of recent importance including seismic retrofit and mitigation of wildlife hazards.
Paragraph (d)(4) (bridge rehabilitation) would incorporate part of the text of current § 771.117(d)(3) with the clarification that the approaches to the bridge or tunnel would also be included in the project and that historic bridges and bridges providing access to ecologically sensitive areas are excluded.
Paragraph (d)(5) (bridge replacement) would incorporate the remaining part of the text of current § 771.117(d)(3). If applicable, “section 106” (National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
Paragraph (d)(6) (parking facilities) would incorporate activities from the current § 771.117(c)(13) and (d)(4), but would apply to all parking facilities, not just those on transportation fringes, if the CE conditions are met.
Paragraph (d)(7) (new operations centers) would be added as a CE primarily covering the construction of buildings to house the control centers from which ITS systems are operated and managed.
Paragraph (d)(8) (support facility construction) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(d)(5) with the addition of other similarly sized support facilities.
Paragraph (d)(9) (access control) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(d)(7) without substantive change.
Paragraph (d)(10) (track improvements) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(c)(18) in situations where land acquisition is needed.
Paragraph (d)(11) (storage yards and shops) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(d)(8) and (11) without substantive change.
Paragraph (d)(12) (building renovation) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(d)(9) without substantive change.
Paragraph (d)(13) (transfer facilities) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(d)(10) without substantive change.
Paragraph (d)(14) (ferry facilities) would be added as an explicit statement that work on existing ferry facilities may be a CE, but concern for water-related impacts necessitates its inclusion in paragraph (d) so that a written CE demonstration must be provided.
Paragraph (d)(15) (rail service demonstrations) would be added as a CE, based on our experience with previous similar cases. If the service demonstration were to lead to proposal for permanent service involving Federal financial support, that permanent project would be separately evaluated for its impacts.
Paragraph (d)(16) (advance land acquisition) would have three parts to it as follows:
(1) Paragraph (d)(16)(i) would allow the acquisition primarily of underutilized private railroad rights-of-way (ROW). It reflects current FTA practice where present or recent rail operations on the ROW ensure that adjacent land uses remain generally compatible with the continued transportation use of the ROW;
(2) Paragraph (d)(16)(ii) would respond to the provisions of the TEA-21 section 1301 without attempting to elaborate on those provisions. Such elaboration would be covered in separate guidance on the issue of advance land acquisition; and,
(3) Paragraph (d)(16)(iii) would incorporate the text of current § 771.117(d)(12) covering hardship and protective acquisitions, without substantive change.
Paragraph (d)(17) (joint development) would incorporate part of the text of current § 771.117(d)(6) without substantive change.
Paragraph (d)(18) (bicycle facilities) would incorporate activities covered in the text of current § 771.117(c)(3). With this change, bicycle projects involving land acquisition and construction would require a written CE demonstration.
Paragraph (d)(19) (storm water management) would add a new CE that covers a transportation enhancement activity that may involve land acquisition and construction of storm water detention or retention ponds. It is, therefore, proposed to be included in the list where a CE demonstration is required.
Paragraph (d)(20) (historic transportation facilities) would add a new CE that covers a transportation enhancement activity that will have section 106 (historic preservation) implications. It is, therefore, proposed to be included in the list where a CE demonstration is required.
Paragraph (d)(21) (other transportation enhancements) would add a new CE that covers the other transportation enhancement activities and transit enhancements that are not explicitly listed.
We propose additional, nonregulatory guidance on situations where a group of different, but related, categorically excluded actions may need to be evaluated as a whole if they have a net effect that warrants further environmental analysis (e.g., ITS projects throughout a corridor).
Some commenters including the Michigan DOT, the AASHTO and others requested that advance right-of-way acquisition be added to the categorical exclusion list. The U.S. EPA was concerned about coordinating any expansions of the list with other Federal agencies and was particularly concerned about wetlands mitigation needs. The Ohio DOT suggested that rather than expand the list of categorical exclusions, our agencies develop “thresholds of significance” whereby projects within those thresholds would be those considered for categorical exclusions. Finally, a number of commenters, including the Ventura County Transportation Commission, the ARTBA, and the Oregon DOT supported the categorical exclusion of transportation enhancement activities and suggested categorically excluding congestion mitigation and air quality program (CMAQ) eligible projects. We have considered these comments in devising the proposed list. Nevertheless, we invite comment on these suggestions and on the appropriateness of the activities proposed to be categorically excluded, including whether or not specific activities should be included in the list under paragraph (c) or the list under paragraph (d). We encourage commenters to provide examples or information drawn from their
Current § 771.119 would be redesignated as § 1420.313 with some minor editing changes.
Current § 771.121 would be redesignated as § 1420.121 with minor editing changes.
The proposed section would revise the current § 771.123 by expanding the description of both public involvement procedures and the information products developed in accordance to the proposed 23 CFR part 1410. Paragraph (b) would specifically indicate that the scoping process must consider the results of the planning process including public involvement and interagency coordination. Items related to mitigation would be expanded to include environmental enhancements. Paragraph (b) would now emphasize public involvement and interagency coordination. Paragraph (c) would add language to our goals and policies in terms of implementing NEPA. The discussion on the use of consultants in the development of the draft EIS would be removed to avoid repetition with proposed § 1420.301.
Current § 771.125 would be redesignated as § 1420.319. Information would be added in paragraph (a)(1) to require any additional environmental studies, public involvement, and/or coordination to consider refinements of alternatives and mitigation to be presented in the FEIS.
Current § 771.127 would be redesignated as § 1420.321. In paragraph (a), the information about preparation of the notice of availability would be expanded to indicate where and to whom the notice should be provided. In paragraph (c), wording would be added to emphasize that mitigation and enhancement features associated with the selected alternative become enforceable conditions of any U.S. DOT actions.
Current § 771.129 would be redesignated as § 1420.323. Paragraphs (a) through (c) are essentially unchanged from the current regulation. Paragraph (d) has been added to ensure public involvement and interagency coordination when the situation warrants. Guidance will be provided on this subject. We invite comment on how effective the proposed reevaluation provision would be in addressing projects which are implemented over an extended period of time, with construction occurring under multiple contracts. We also invite comment on the appropriate role of public involvement in reevaluations.
Current § 771.130 would be redesignated as § 1420.325. It is essentially unchanged from the current regulation except that supplementation now includes consideration of public involvement and interagency coordination.
For ease of reference, a distribution table is provided for the current sections and proposed sections as follows:
This new section would be added to state that this regulation implements 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 (section 4(f)).
Current § 771.135(a)(1) would be redesignated as § 1430.103 without substantive change in text.
Current §§ 771.109(a)(1) and (2) provide the basis for this proposed section. Also, part of § 771.135(b) would be incorporated to make clear that the U.S. DOT agency decides the applicability of section 4(f).
Current § 771.135(p)(1), (2), (4), and (7) would be redesignated as § 1430.107 without substantive change.
Current § 135(c) and (e) would be redesignated as § 1430.109 without substantive change.
Current § 771.135(d), (g), (h), and (p)(5) would be redesignated as § 1430.111 without substantive change. The proposed section also incorporates the current § 771.135(f), except that the consultation requirement has been modified to be consistent with the new 36 CFR part 800 recently published by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As proposed, the provision is silent with respect to the relationship between “adverse effects” under 36 CFR part 800 and “constructive use” under this regulation. We invite comment as to whether or not a specific relationship should be established in this regulation. We also invite comment as to other measures that we might take to better
Current § 771.135(a)(2), (j), (k), (l), (p)(3), (p)(6), most of (i), and part of (b) would be redesignated as § 1430.113 without substantive change. The proposed section also would include a new provision in proposed paragraph (b) allowing consideration of the products of the planning process in the section 4(f) evaluation. Both the current and proposed regulation continue to codify in regulation language of the Supreme Court decision in Overton Park (401 U.S. 402 (1971)) that an avoidance alternative must be preferred unless the evaluation demonstrates that there are “unique problems or unusual features associated with it, or that the cost, the social, economical, or environmental impacts, or the community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes.” We invite comment on whether or not this standard deserves further definition in regulation or in guidance in light of changes to the highway program in the years since the court's decision. In particular, we would appreciate views on whether or not the qualitative importance or value of the section 4(f) resource should be explicitly taken into account in determining whether or not an avoidance alternative is “feasible and prudent,” especially when balancing the impacts of the various alternatives.
Current § 771.135(m) and (n) would be redesignated as § 1430.115 without substantive change.
The last sentence of current § 771.135(i) would be redesignated as § 1430.117, including a new explanatory introductory sentence. The proposed provision would provide a clear regulatory basis for programmatic section 4(f) evaluations and approvals, a practice which the Department of Transportation has used from time to time. For example, programmatic section 4(f) evaluations have been prepared for the following situations: Bikeways, historic bridges, projects involving minimal use of property for historic properties and projects involving minimal use of parkland. We invite suggestions of additional situations that would be appropriate subjects of future programmatic section 4(f) evaluations.
Current § 771.135(o) would be redesignated as § 1430.119 and would remain substantively unchanged except that the concept of a preliminary section 4(f) evaluation has been extended to the planning process in exactly the same way it previously applied to first-tier EISs.
A new § 1430.121 would be added to provide a consistent set of definitions of terms used in the planning regulations (23 CFR part 1410), the NEPA regulation (23 CFR part 1420), and this regulation (23 CFR part 1430).
All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this document in the docket room at the above address or via the electronic addresses provided above. The FHWA and the FTA will file comments received after the comment closing date in the docket and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. The FHWA and the FTA may, however, issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In addition to late comments, the FHWA and the FTA will also continue to file in the docket relevant information becoming available after the comment closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material.
We have determined that this proposed action is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and under the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures because of substantial State, local government, congressional, and public interest. These interests involve receipt of Federal financial support for transportation investments, appropriate compliance with statutory requirements, and balancing of transportation mobility and environmental goals. We anticipate that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. Most costs associated with these rules are attributable to the provisions of the TEA-21, the ISTEA, the Clean Air Act (as amended), and other statutes including earlier highway acts.
We consider this proposal to be a means to simplify, clarify, and reorganize existing regulatory requirements. There have been no changes to NEPA or CEQ regulations. These rules would merely revise existing NEPA regulations of the FHWA and the FTA and conform those regulations to the environmental streamlining requirements of TEA-21. In response to congressional direction in TEA-21, the U.S. DOT is proposing to implement improved coordinated environmental review processes for highway and transit projects. States have been carrying out statewide transportation planning activities with title 23, U.S.C., and FTA planning and research funds for many years. Neither the individual nor the cumulative impact of this action would be significant because this action would not alter the funding levels available to the States for Federal or federally-assisted programs covered by the TEA-21.
The amendments impose no additional requirements. The environmental streamlining process under section 1309 of TEA-21 establishes coordinated environmental review processes by which U.S. DOT would work with other Federal agencies to assure that major highway and transit projects are advanced according to cooperatively determined time frames. Such processes have been incorporated into a memorandum of understanding between U.S. DOT and other Federal agencies.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602), we have evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities, such as local governments and businesses. The TEA-21 provides the flexibility for these agencies to provide the resources necessary to meet any time limits established under environmental streamlining. Additionally, the FHWA has issued guidance concerning transportation funding for Federal agency coordination using a full range of options for reimbursement under appropriate authorities. Accordingly, the FHWA and the FTA certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
We have also analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient Federalism implications on States and local governments that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this document directly preempts any State law or regulation. The TEA-21 directs the DOT to establish an integrated NEPA review and permitting process and to encourage approvals as early as possible in the scoping and planning process, yet also to maintain an emphasis on a strong environmental policy. Throughout the proposed regulation there is an effort to keep administrative burdens to a minimum.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway planning and construction (or 20.217, Motor Carrier Safety). The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1531
This proposal contains no new collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. This notice of proposed rulemaking would encourage the coordination of approvals by Federal agencies involved in the NEPA process and could reduce the level of recordkeeping.
The information prepared by non-Federal parties pursuant to this proposed regulation is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. First, the collection of information does not entail reporting of information in response to identical questions. NEPA documents do not involve answering specific questions; they address issues relating to the requirements of multiple Federal environmental statutes. There are too many variables relating to the proposed action, the location in which the action is to be taken, and the statutes that are implicated (and to what extent) to permit a standardized format or content. The issues to be addressed in NEPA documents are therefore determined on a case by case basis. Each is a one of a kind document.
Second, the information is not requested of non-Federal entities but of Federal agencies. The State and local transportation departments and transit agencies compiling information are voluntarily serving as consultants to FHWA and FTA for their own convenience. As the proposers of the actions subject to NEPA, and the owners, operators, and maintainers of the resulting facility, and key decisionmakers regarding the choices involved in project development, it is easier for them to prepare the NEPA documents. Information is not requested of outside entities except within the PRA exception relating to “facts or opinions submitted in response from general solicitations of comments for the general public (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4).”
Third, State and local departments of transportation and transit agencies develop this information reported to FHWA/FTA as a normal part of doing business. NEPA documents contain engineering and environmental information that is integral to developing projects in a way that conforms to State and local laws. The development of engineering and environmental information is an unavoidable step in project development whether or not the Federal government is involved. We invite comments on this analysis.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to healthy or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Environmental protection, Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Historic preservation, Public lands, Recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental impact statements, Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Mass
Environmental protection, Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Historic preservation, Mass transportation, Public lands, Recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife refuges.
Environmental impact statements, Grant programs—transportation, Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Grant programs—transportation, Mass Transportation, Public lands, Recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife refuges.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 109, 128, 134, 138, and 315, the Federal Highway Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. Remove part 771.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration propose to amend proposed Chapter IV in title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (published elsewhere in this
2. Add parts 1420 and 1430 to read as follows:
23 U.S.C. 109, 128, 134, 138 and 315; 42 U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-4, 4321
The purpose of this part is to establish policies and procedures of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended, and to supplement the regulation of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. In concert with 23 CFR 1410 this part sets forth a NEPA process that integrates and streamlines the compliance with all applicable transportation and environmental laws that govern Federal transportation decisionmaking.
The CEQ regulation lays out NEPA responsibilities for all Federal agencies. This FHWA/FTA regulation supplements the CEQ regulation with specific provisions regarding the FHWA/FTA approach to implementing NEPA for the Federal surface transportation actions under their jurisdiction. For a full understanding of NEPA responsibilities relative to the FHWA/FTA actions, the reader must refer to both this regulation and the CEQ regulation. In addition, the FHWA/FTA will rely on nonregulatory guidance materials, training courses, and documentation of best practices in the management of their NEPA responsibilities. The available materials and training course schedules are posted on the FHWA and the FTA web sites and can be obtained by contacting Planning and Environment Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC 20590 or Associate Administrator for Planning, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC 20590.
(a)(1) The provisions of this part and the CEQ regulation apply to actions where a U.S. DOT agency exercises sufficient control and has the statutory authority to condition the action or approval. Actions taken by the applicant or others that do not require any U.S. DOT agency approval or over which a U.S. DOT agency has no discretion, including, but not limited to, projects or maintenance on Federal-aid highways or transit systems not involving Federal-aid funds or approvals, and actions from which the U.S. DOT agency are excluded by law or regulation, are not subject to this part.
(2) This part does not apply to, or alter approvals by the U.S. DOT agencies made prior to the effective date of this part.
(3) NEPA documents accepted or prepared by the U.S. DOT agency after the effective date of this part shall be developed in accordance with this part.
(b) In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the actions covered by each environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA), or designated a categorical exclusion (CE) shall:
(1) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made;
(2) Connect logical termini, if linear in configuration, and be of sufficient length or size to address environmental matters over a sufficiently wide area that all reasonably foreseeable impacts are considered; and
(3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
(a) It is the intent of the U.S. DOT agencies that the NEPA principles of environmental stewardship and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) objective of timely implementation of transportation facilities and provision of transportation services should guide Federal, State, local, and tribal decisionmaking on all transportation actions subject to these laws. Accordingly, in administering their responsibilities under numerous transportation and environmental laws, the U.S. DOT agencies will manage the NEPA process to maximize attainment of the following goals:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(a) In keeping with the above goals, it is the policy of the FHWA/FTA that the NEPA process be the means of bringing together all legal responsibilities, issues, and interests relevant to the transportation decision in a logical way to evaluate alternative courses of action, and that it lead to a single final decision regarding the key characteristics of a proposed action (such as, location, major design features, mitigation measures, and environmental enhancements). This decision shall be made in the best overall public interest based on a balanced consideration of the need for safe and efficient transportation; the social, economic, and environmental benefits and impacts of the proposed action; and the attainment of national, State, tribal, and local environmental protection goals.
(b) Any environmentally related study, review, or consultation required by Federal law should be conducted within the framework of the NEPA process to assure integrated and efficient decisionmaking. The State is encouraged to conduct its activities during the NEPA process toward the same goal.
(c) Federal responsibilities to be addressed in the NEPA process whenever applicable to the decision on the proposed action include, but are not limited to the following protections of:
(1)
(i) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-4) and related statutes;
(ii) Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601
(iii) Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101
(iv) 49 U.S.C. 5332, nondiscrimination;
(v) 49 U.S.C. 5324(a), relocation requirements;
(vi) 23 U.S.C. 128 and 49 U.S.C. 5323(b), public hearing requirements;
(2)
(i) Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 3 CFR, 1995 comp., p. 859), environmental justice for minority and low-income populations;
(ii) 49 U.S.C. 303, protection of public parks and recreation areas;
(iii) 23 U.S.C. 109(h), economic, social, and environmental effects of highways;
(iv) 49 U.S.C. 5324(b), economic, social, and environmental effects of transit;
(v) 23 U.S.C. 109(i), highway noise standards;
(vi) Clean Air Act (23 U.S.C. 109(j), 42 U.S.C. 7509 and 7521(a)
(vii) Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 201 and 300);
(viii) Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201-4209);
(ix) National Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C. 1401, 2414, 4001 to 4127);
(x) Solid Waste Disposal Act (Public Law 89-272; 42 U.S.C. 6901
(xi) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901
(xii) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601
(xiii) Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001 to 11050);
(3)
(i) 49 U.S.C. 303, protection of historic sites;
(ii) National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
(iii) 23 U.S.C. 109(h), economic, social, and environmental effects of highways;
(iv) 49 U.S.C. 5324(b), economic, social, and environmental effects of transit;
(v) 23 U.S.C. 109(i), highway noise standards;
(vi) Clean Air Act (23 U.S.C. 109(j), 42 U.S.C. 7509 and 7521(a)
(vii) Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 201 and 300);
(viii) Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201-4209);
(ix) National Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C. 1401, 2414, 4001 to 4127);
(x) Solid Waste Disposal Act (Public Law 89-272; 42 U.S.C. 6901
(xi) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901
(xii) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601
(xiii) Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001 to 11050);
(3)
(i) 49 U.S.C. 303, protection of historic sites;
(ii) National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
(iii) 23 U.S.C. 109(h), economic, social, and environmental effects of highways;
(iv) 49 U.S.C. 5324(b), economic, social, and environmental effects of transit;
(v) Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469);
(vi) Archeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa to 47011);
(vii) Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities (16 U.S.C. 431 to 433);
(viii) American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996
(ix) Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 to 3013);
(x) 23 U.S.C. 144(o), historic bridges;
(xi) 23 U.S.C. 530, wildflowers;
(xii) 23 U.S.C. 131, 136, 319, highway beautification;
(4)
(i) 23 U.S.C. 109(h), economic, social, and environmental effects of highways;
(ii) 49 U.S.C. 5324(b), economic, social, and environmental effects of transit;
(iii) Federal Water Pollution Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 to 1376);
(iv) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 to 1287);
(v) Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460);
(vi) Water Bank Act (16 U.S.C. 1301 to 1311);
(vii) Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961; 3 CFR, 1977 comp., p. 121), protection of wetlands;
(viii) Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3921 to 3931);
(ix) Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401
(x) Executive Orders 11988 (42 FR 26951; 3 CFR, 1977 comp., p. 1171) and 12148 (44 FR 43239; 3 CFR, 1979 comp., p. 412), floodplain management;
(5)
(i) Endangered Species Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 136, 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1543);
(ii) 49 U.S.C. 303, protection of wildlife and waterfowl refuges;
(iii) 23 U.S.C. 109(h), economic, social, and environmental effects of highways;
(iv) 9 U.S.C. 5324(b), economic, social, and environmental effects of transit;
(v) Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 to 1445, 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445);
(vi) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 to 666);
(vii) Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 to 1136);
(viii) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 to 1287);
(ix) Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1464);
(x) Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 to 3510, 42 U.S.C. 4028);
(xi) National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 to 1249);
(xii) Executive Order 13112 (64 FR 6183), Invasive Species.
(a) In accordance with the goals established in Executive Order 12898, as implemented by DOT Order 5610.2 and the FHWA Order 6640.23,
(b) In performing an environmental analysis of proposed actions, applicants must analyze data necessary to determine whether the actions will have disproportionately high and adverse effects on low income and minority communities. When disproportionately high and adverse effects are found, the applicant must identify measures to address these disproportionate effects, including actions to avoid or mitigate them, or it must explain and justify why such measures cannot be taken.
(c) The findings and determinations made pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be documented as part of the NEPA document prepared for the proposed action, or in a supplemental document if the NEPA process has been completed.
(d) In accordance with Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2, and the FHWA Order 6640.23, nothing in this section is intended to, nor shall create, any right to judicial review of any action taken by the agency, its officers or its recipients taken under this section to comply with such Orders.
(a) In accordance with the goals established in § 1420.107, it is the policy of the FHWA and the FTA that proposed actions be developed as described in this section, to the fullest extent practicable. For the purposes of this section, “practicable” means a common sense balancing of environmental values with safety, transportation need, costs, and other relevant factors in decisionmaking. No additional findings or paperwork are required.
(1) Adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts to the affected human communities and the natural environment should be avoided.
(2) Where adverse impacts cannot be avoided, proposed measures should be developed to minimize adverse impacts.
(3) Measures necessary to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts be incorporated into the action, or should be part of a mitigation program completed in advance of the action.
(4) Environmental enhancements should be evaluated and incorporated into the action as appropriate.
(b) Mitigation measures and environmental enhancements shall be eligible for Federal funding to the fullest extent authorized by law.
(c) NEPA commitments.
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant in cooperation with the U.S. DOT agency to implement those mitigation measures and environmental enhancements, stated as commitments in the final EIS/ROD, EA/FONSI, or CE prepared or supplemented pursuant to this regulation, unless the commitment is modified or eliminated in a supplemental final EIS/ROD, EA/FONSI or CE, or re-evaluation approved by the U.S. DOT agency.
(2) If a final EIS/ROD, EA/FONSI, CE, or other U.S. DOT agency approval commits to coordination with another agency during the final design and construction phase, or during the operational phase of the action, the applicant is responsible for such coordination, unless the commitment is removed in a supplemental final EIS/ROD, EA/FONSI or CE, or re-evaluation approved by the U.S. DOT agency.
(a) The planning products described in § 1410.318 shall be considered early in the NEPA process. The FTA and the FHWA encourage all Federal, State and local agencies with project level responsibilities for investments included in a transportation plan to participate in the planning process so as to maximize the usefulness of the planning products for the NEPA process and eliminate duplication.
(b) Applicants preparing documents under this part shall, to the maximum extent useful and practicable, incorporate and utilize analyses, studies, documents, and other sources of information developed during the transportation planning processes of 23 CFR part 1410 and other planning processes in satisfying the requirements of the NEPA process. The provisions of 40 CFR 1502.21 (incorporation by reference) will be used as appropriate.
(c) During scoping for an EIS or early coordination for an environmental assessment, the U.S. DOT agency and the applicant shall, in consultation with the transportation planning agencies responsible for inclusion of the project in the metropolitan (if applicable) and statewide plan and program, review the record of previously completed planning activities, including any existing statement of purpose and need and evaluation of alternatives. Where the U.S. DOT agency, in cooperation with the applicant, determines that planning decisions are adequately supported, the detailed evaluation of alternatives required under § 1420.313(b) or § 1420.317(c) may be limited to the no action and reasonable alternatives requiring further consideration. In deciding which of the evaluations and conclusions of the planning process are adequately supported and may be incorporated during the NEPA process, the U.S. DOT agency and the applicant shall take into account the following:
(1) The validity and completeness of the supporting analyses,
(2) The public involvement process associated with those planning products,
(3) The degree of coordination with Federal, State, and local resource agencies with interest in or authority over the ultimate action(s); and
(4) The level of formal endorsement of the analyses and conclusions by participants in the planning process.
(a) For highway and mass transit projects requiring an environmental impact statement, an environmental assessment, or an environmental review, analysis, opinion, or environmental permit, license, or approval by operation of Federal law, as lead Federal agency, the U.S. DOT agency, in cooperation with the applicant, shall perform the following:
(1) Consult with the applicant regarding the issues involved, the likely Federal involvement, and project timing.
(2) Early in the NEPA process, contact Federal agencies likely to be involved in the proposed action to verify the nature of their involvement and to discuss issues, methodologies, information requirements, time frames and constraints associated with their involvement.
(3) Identify and use the appropriate means listed in 40 CFR 1500.4 and 1500.5 for reducing paperwork and reducing delay.
(4) Document the results of such consultation and distribute to the appropriate Federal agencies for their concurrence, identifying at a minimum the following:
(i) Federal reviews and approvals needed for the action,
(ii) Those issues to be addressed in the NEPA process and those that need no further evaluation,
(iii) Methodologies to be employed in the conduct of the NEPA process,
(iv) Proposed agency and public involvement processes, and
(v) A process schedule.
(5) Identify, during the course of completing the NEPA process, points of interagency disagreement causing delay and immediately take informal measures to resolve or reduce delay. If these measures are not successful in a reasonable time, the U.S. DOT agency shall initiate a dispute resolution process pursuant to section 1309 of the TEA-21.
(b) A State may request that all State agencies with environmental review or approval responsibilities be included in the coordinated environmental review process and, with the consent of the U.S. DOT agency, establish an appropriate means to assure that Federal and State environmental reviews and approvals are fully coordinated.
(c) At the request of the applicant, the coordinated environmental review process need not be applied to an action not requiring an environmental impact statement.
(d) In accordance with the CEQ regulations on reducing paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4), NEPA documents prepared by DOT agencies need not devote paper to impact areas and issues that are not implicated in the proposed action and need not make explicit findings on such issues.
(a) Nothing in this part shall prohibit the U.S. DOT agency from making approvals which apply to future actions consistent with the conditions established for such programmatic approvals.
(b) Applicants shall cooperate with the U.S. DOT agency in conducting program evaluations to ensure that such programmatic approvals are being properly applied.
(a) The FHWA and the FTA shall institute a process to assure that actions subject to this part meet or exceed legal requirements and are processed in a timely manner.
(b) For actions processed with an environmental impact statement, this process shall include a legal sufficiency review and may require the prior concurrence of the Headquarters office in accordance with procedures established by the FTA and the FHWA.
(a) An applicant may propose to the U.S. DOT agency alternative procedures for complying with the intent of this part with respect to its actions.
(b) The U.S. DOT agency shall publish such alternative procedures in the
(c) After taking into account comments received, and negotiating with the applicant appropriate changes to such alternative procedures, the U.S. DOT agency shall approve such alternative procedures only after making a finding that the alternative procedures will be fully effective at complying with NEPA and related responsibilities.
As authorized by the Secretary, other U.S. DOT agencies may use this part for specific actions or categories of actions under their jurisdiction.
Requests for deviations from the procedures in this part because of emergency circumstances shall be referred to the U.S. DOT agency for evaluation and decision in consultation with the CEQ in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.11.
(a) The CEQ regulation establishes rules for lead agencies (40 CFR 1501.5) and cooperating agencies (40 CFR 1501.6). It also encourages Federal agencies to cooperate with State and local agencies to eliminate duplication (40 CFR 1506.2) and defines the relationship between Federal agencies, applicants, and contractors (40 CFR 1506.5).
(b) For actions on Federal lands that are developed directly by the U.S. DOT agency in cooperation with the Federal land management agency, responsibilities for management of the NEPA process shall be as established by interagency agreement or procedure.
(c) Use of contractors.
(1) The U.S. DOT agency or an applicant may select and use contractors, in accordance with applicable contracting procedures, and the provisions of 40 CFR 1506.5(c), in support of their respective roles in the NEPA process. An applicant which is a
(2) A State may procure the services of a consultant, under a single contract, for environmental impact assessment and subsequent engineering and design work, provided that the State conducts a review that assesses the objectivity of the NEPA work in accordance with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 112(g).
(a) Interagency coordination during the NEPA process involves the early and continuing exchange of information with interested Federal, State, local public agencies, and tribal governments. Interagency coordination should begin early as part of the planning process and continue through project development, the preparation of an appropriate NEPA document, and, by agreement, into the implementation stage of the action. Interested agencies include those that express a continuing interest in any aspect of the actions during the planning process and project development processes. They include those agencies whose jurisdiction, responsibilities, or expertise may involve any aspect of the action or its alternatives. The purpose of interagency coordination is to aid in determining the class of action, the scope of the NEPA document, the identification of key issues, the appropriate level of analysis, methods of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of adverse impact, opportunities for environmental enhancement, and related environmental requirements. Coordination early in the NEPA process must extend beyond agencies consulted during the planning process to those agencies whose interest begins only when preliminary designs of alternative actions are being developed. The appropriate frequency and timing of coordination with a particular agency will depend on the interests of the agency consulted.
(b) Federal land management entities, neighboring States, and tribal governments, that may be significantly affected by the action or by any of the alternatives shall be notified early in the NEPA process and their views solicited by the applicant in cooperation with the U.S. DOT agency.
(c) Upon U.S. DOT agency written approval of an EA, FONSI, separate section 4(f) determination, or CE designation, the applicant shall send a notice of availability of the approved document, or a copy of the approved document itself, to the affected units of Federal, State, and local government. The notice shall briefly describe the action and its location and impacts. Cooperating agencies shall be provided a copy of the approved document.
(a) The applicant must have a continuing program of public involvement which actively encourages and facilitates the participation of transportation and environmental interest groups, citizens groups, private businesses, and the general public including minority and low income populations through a wide range of techniques for communicating and exchanging information. The applicant shall use the products of the public involvement process developed during planning pursuant to 23 CFR 1410.212 and 1410.316, whenever such information is reasonably available and relevant, to provide continuity between the public involvement programs.
(b) Each applicant developing projects under this part must adopt written procedures to carry out the public involvement requirements of this section and 40 CFR 1506.6, and, as appropriate, 23 U.S.C. 128, and 49 U.S.C. 5323(b) and 5324(b). The applicant's public involvement procedures shall apply to all classes of action as described in § 1420.309 and shall be developed in cooperation with other transportation agencies with jurisdiction in the same area, so that, to the maximum extent practicable, the public is presented with a consistent set of procedures that do not vary with the transportation mode of the proposed action or with the phase of project development. Where two or more involved parties have separate established procedures, a cooperative process for determining the appropriate public involvement activities and their consistency with the separate agency's procedures will be cooperatively established.
(c) Public involvement procedures must provide for the following:
(1) Coordination of public involvement activities with the entire NEPA process and, when appropriate, with the planning process. The procedures also must provide for coordination and information required to comply with public involvement requirements of other related laws, executive orders, and regulations;
(2) Early and continuing opportunities for the public to be informed about, and involved in the identification of social, economic, and environmental impacts and impacts associated with relocation of individuals, groups, or institutions;
(3) The use of an appropriate variety of public involvement activities, techniques, meeting and hearing formats, and notification media;
(4) A scoping process that satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.7;
(5) One or more public hearings or the opportunity for hearing(s) to be held at a convenient time and place that encourage public participation, for any project which requires the relocation of substantial numbers of people, substantially changes the layout or functions of connecting transportation facilities or of the facility being improved, has a substantial adverse impact on abutting property, substantially affects a community or its mass transportation service, otherwise has a substantial social, economic, environmental or other effect, or for which the U.S. DOT agency determines that a public hearing is in the public interest;
(6) Reasonable notice to the public of either a public hearing or the opportunity for a public hearing where a hearing is determined appropriate. Such notice shall indicate the availability of explanatory information;
(7) Where appropriate, the submission to the U.S. DOT agency of a transcript of each public hearing and a certification (pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 128 or 49 U.S.C. 5324(b)(2)) that a required hearing or hearing opportunity was offered. The transcript should be accompanied by copies of all written statements from the public, submitted either at the public hearing or during an announced period after the public hearing;
(8) Specific procedures for complying with the public and agency involvement and notification requirements for the following: EAs, Findings of no significant impact (FONSI), Draft EISs, Final EISs, and Records of decision (ROD);
(9) Reasonable accommodations for participation by persons with disabilities, including, upon request, the provision of auxiliary aids and services for understanding speakers at meetings and environmental documents.
(d) Where a re-evaluation of NEPA documents is required pursuant to § 1420.323, the U.S. DOT agency and the applicant will determine whether changes in the project or new information warrant additional public involvement.
(e) A minimum public comment period of 45 days shall be provided prior to the initial adoption or substantial revision of public involvement procedures.
(f) Public involvement procedures in effect as of the date of this part remain valid, but will be reviewed periodically for effectiveness.
(a) The FHWA and/or the FTA will not approve the initiation and will not authorize funding for final design activities, property acquisition (except the types of advance land acquisitions described in § 1420.311(d)(16)), purchase of construction materials or transit vehicles, or construction, until the following have been completed:
(1)(i) The action has been classified as a categorical exclusion (CE), or
(ii) A FONSI has been approved, or
(iii) A final EIS has been approved, made available for the prescribed period of time, and a record of decision has been signed;
(2) The U.S. DOT agency has received transcripts of public hearings held, and any required certifications that a hearing or opportunity for a hearing was provided; and
(3) The planning and programming requirements of 23 CFR part 1410 have been met.
(b) Before completion of the NEPA document, if it becomes apparent that the preferred alternative will not be consistent with the design concept and scope of the action identified in the relevant plan and TIP, the applicant shall immediately notify the State agency responsible for the State TIP, and, in metropolitan areas, the MPO, so that the planning and programming requirements of 23 CFR part 1410 can be satisfied prior to the approval of a final EIS, Record of Decision, FONSI or CE.
(c) Compliance with the requirements of all applicable environmental laws, regulations, executive orders, and other related requirements as set forth in § 1420.109 should be completed prior to the approval of the final EIS, FONSI, or the CE designation. If full compliance is not possible by the time the final EIS or FONSI is prepared, the final EIS or FONSI should reflect consultation with the appropriate agencies and provide reasonable assurance that the requirements will be met. However, full compliance with the U.S. EPA's conformity regulation at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 is required prior to the approval of the ROD, FONSI or CE designation. Approval of the NEPA document constitutes adoption of DOT agency findings and determinations that are contained therein unless otherwise specified. The FHWA approval of the appropriate NEPA document will constitute its finding of compliance with the report requirements of 23 U.S.C. 128. The FTA approval of the appropriate NEPA document indicates compliance with 49 U.S.C. 5324(b) and fulfillment of the grant application requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5323(b), if such requirements are applicable to the action.
(d) The completion of the requirements set forth in this section is considered the U.S. DOT agency's acceptance of the location of the action and design concepts described in the NEPA document unless otherwise specified by the approving official. However, such acceptance does not commit the U.S. DOT agency to approve any future grant request to fund the preferred alternative.
(a) Class I (EISs). Actions that significantly affect the environment require an EIS (40 CFR 1508.27). The following are examples of actions normally requiring an EIS:
(1) A new controlled access freeway.
(2) A highway project of four or more lanes on a new location.
(3) New construction or major extension of fixed rail transit facilities (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, automated guideway transit).
(4) New construction or major extension of a separate roadway for buses or high occupancy vehicles not located within an existing highway facility.
(5) New construction or major extension of an intercity railroad not located within existing railroad right-of-way.
(6) A multimodal or intermodal facility that includes or requires any of the other Class I actions.
(b) Class II (Categorical Exclusions). Actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact are excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS. A specific list of CEs normally not requiring NEPA documentation is set forth in § 1420.311(c). Additional actions not listed may be designated as CEs pursuant to § 1420.311(d), if documented environmental studies demonstrate that the action would not, either individually or cumulatively, have a significant environmental impact.
(c) Class III (EAs). Actions in which the significance of the environmental impact is not clearly established. All actions that are not Class I or II are Class III. All actions in this class require the preparation of an EA to determine the appropriate, subsequent NEPA document (i.e., Findings of no significant impact or EIS).
(a) Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions which meet the definition contained in 40 CFR 1508.4, and are known, on the basis of past experience with similar actions, not to involve significant environmental impacts. They are actions which: Do not induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; do not require the relocation of significant numbers of people; do not have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other resource; do not involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; do not have significant impacts on travel patterns; or do not otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have any significant environmental impacts.
(b) Any action which normally would be classified as a CE but could involve unusual circumstances will require the U.S. DOT agency, in cooperation with the applicant, to conduct appropriate environmental studies to determine if the CE classification is proper. Such unusual circumstances include:
(1) Unique environmental impacts;
(2) Substantial controversy on environmental grounds;
(3) Significant impact on properties protected by 49 U.S.C. 303 (section 4(f)) or section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or
(4) Inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local law, requirement or administrative determination relating to the environmental aspects of the action.
(c) The following actions meet the criteria for CEs in the CEQ regulation (40 CFR 1508.4) and § 1420.311(a) of this regulation. If other environmental laws (i.e., those listed in § 1420.109(c)) do not apply to the action, then it does not require any further NEPA approval by the U.S. DOT agency. If the U.S. DOT agency is not sure of the applicability of one of these CEs or of other environmental laws to a particular proposed action, the applicant will be
(1) Activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as program administration (e.g., personnel actions, procurement of consulting services or office supplies); the promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, and legislative proposals; planning and technical studies; technical assistance activities; training and research programs; technology transfer activities; research activities as defined in 23 U.S.C. 501-507; archaeological planning and research; approval of a unified planning work program; development and establishment of management systems under 23 U.S.C. 303; approval of project concepts under 23 CFR part 476; preliminary engineering to define the elements of a proposed action or alternatives so that social, economic, and environmental effects can be assessed; Federal-aid system revisions which establish classes of highways; and designation of highways to the National Highway System.
(2) Modernization of a highway by resurfacing.
(3) Routine maintenance or minor rehabilitation of existing transportation facilities, including pavements, tracks, railbeds, bridges, structures, stations, terminals, maintenance shops, storage yards, and buildings, that occurs entirely on or within the facility, where there is no change in the character and use of the facility, and no substantial disruption of service or traffic; purchase of associated capital maintenance items; preventive maintenance of transit facilities, vehicles, and other equipment.
(4) Incorporation of an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) element into an existing transportation facility or service, including the development, purchase, installation, maintenance, improvement, and operation of a traveler information system, incident management and emergency response system, traffic management and control system, security system, or MAYDAY system that enables public agencies to detect and respond to emergency situations.
(5) Activities included in the State's highway safety program under 23 U.S.C. 402; enforcement of railroad safety regulations, including the issuance of emergency orders.
(6) Improvement of existing rest areas, toll collection facilities, truck weigh stations, traffic management and control centers, and vehicle emissions testing centers where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption will occur.
(7) Carpool and vanpool projects, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 146, if no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption will occur.
(8) Emergency repairs of highways, roads and trails under 23 U.S.C. 125; emergency repair of transit or railroad facilities after a natural disaster or catastrophic failure.
(9) Operating assistance to transit agencies.
(10) Acquisition of buses, rail vehicles, paratransit vehicles, and transit-support vehicles, where the use of these vehicles can be accommodated by existing facilities or by new facilities which are themselves CEs.
(11) Purchase or installation of operating or maintenance equipment to be located within an existing transportation facility with no significant impacts off the site; lease of existing facilities, vehicles, or other equipment for use in providing transit services; capital cost of contracting for transit services.
(12) Bus and rail car rehabilitation, including the retrofit or replacement of vehicles for alternative fuels, where the use of these vehicles can be accommodated by existing facilities or new facilities which are themselves CEs.
(13) Improvement of existing tracks, railbeds, communications systems, signal systems, security systems, and electrical power systems when carried out within the existing right-of-way without substantial service disruption.
(14) Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities within existing transportation facilities or right-of-ways; installation of equipment for transporting bicycles on transit vehicles.
(15) Alterations to transportation facilities or vehicles in order to make them accessible by persons with disabilities.
(16) Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger shelters, traffic signals, lighting, and railroad warning devices where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption will occur.
(17) Transfer of Federal lands pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 317 when the subsequent action is not an FHWA action; approvals of disposals of excess right-of-way; transfer of surplus assets, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5334(g); approval of utility installations along or across a transportation facility.
(18) Landscaping, streetscaping, public art and other scenic beautification; control and removal of outdoor advertising; acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites for the purpose of preserving the site.
(19) Installation of noise barriers or other alterations to existing facilities to provide for noise reduction; alterations to existing non-historic buildings to provide for noise reduction.
(20) Contributions to statewide or regional efforts to conserve, restore, enhance, and create wetlands or wildlife habitats.
(d) Additionally, for individual proposed actions to be categorically excluded under this section, the applicant shall submit documentation which demonstrates that the specific conditions or criteria for these CEs are satisfied, that significant environmental effects will not result, that the applicant's public involvement process is consistent with the procedures adopted pursuant to § 1420.305, that any appropriate interagency coordination has occurred, and that any other applicable environmental laws (
(1) Modernization of a highway through restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (
(2) Transportation operational improvements, including those that use ITS, such as, freeway surveillance and control systems, traffic signal monitoring and control systems, transit management systems, electronic fare payment systems, and electronic toll collection systems.
(3) Transportation safety improvements and programs; hazard eliminations, including construction of grade separation to replace existing highway-railway grade crossings; projects to mitigate hazards caused by wildlife; and seismic retrofit of existing transportation facilities or structures.
(4) Rehabilitation or reconstruction of tunnels, bridges, and other structures, and the approaches thereto.
(5) Modification or replacement of an existing bridge on essentially the same alignment or location.
(6) Construction of parking facilities or carpool and vanpool projects that involve land acquisition and construction.
(7) Construction of new buildings to house transportation management and control centers, carpool and vanpool operations centers, or vehicle emissions testing centers.
(8) Construction of new rest areas, toll collection facilities, truck weigh stations or auto emissions testing or safety testing facilities.
(9) Approvals for changes in highway access control.
(10) Improvement of existing tracks, railbeds, communications systems, signal systems, security systems, and electrical power systems, including construction of sidings or passing tracks; extension or expansion of rail electrification on existing, operating rail lines.
(11) Construction of new bus or rail storage and maintenance facilities in undeveloped areas or areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes, where such facility is compatible with existing zoning, the site is located on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated traffic, and there is no significant air or noise impact on the surrounding community.
(12) Renovation, reconstruction, or improvement of existing rail, bus, and intermodal buildings and facilities, including conversion to use by alternative-fuel vehicles.
(13) Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements) or intermodal transfer facilities, when located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected traffic.
(14) Rehabilitation, renovation, or improvement of existing ferry terminals, piers, and facilities.
(15) Short-term demonstrations of rail service on existing tracks.
(16) An acquisition of land or property interests that meets the criteria of paragraph (d)(16)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section may be evaluated against the criteria for a CE in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and paragraph (a) of this section separately from any planned action that would use the land or property interests. Any subsequent action that would use the acquired right-of-way or property interests and would require a DOT agency action must be separately reviewed in accordance with this part prior to any construction on, or change in the land. The following types of acquisitions may qualify as CEs:
(i) Acquisition of an existing transportation right-of-way which is linear in its general configuration and is not publicly owned, such as a railroad or a private road, for the purpose of either maintaining preexisting levels of transportation service on the facility or of preserving the right-of-way for a future transportation action or transportation enhancement activity.
(ii) Acquisition of land, easements, or other property interests with the intent of preserving alternatives for a future transportation action, where the following conditions are met: The transportation action that would use the land or property interests has been specifically included in a transportation plan for the area adopted pursuant to 23 CFR part 1410 and such plan has been found by the U.S. DOT agency to conform to air quality plans in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, if applicable; and the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives to the planned action that would use the land or property interests including shifts in alignment that may be required.
(iii) Acquisition of land or property interests for hardship or protective purposes where the following conditions are met: The transportation action that would use the land or property interests has been specifically included in a transportation plan for the area adopted pursuant to 23 CFR part 1410 and such plan has been found by the U.S. DOT agency to conform to air quality plans in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, if applicable; the hardship and protective buying will be limited to a particular parcel or a small number of parcels related to the planned transportation action; and the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives to the planned action that would use the land or property interests, including shifts in alignment that may be required.
(17) Approvals for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
(18) Construction of a bicycle transportation facility on its own, new right-of-way.
(19) Mitigation of water pollution due to storm water runoff from transportation facilities.
(20) Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad or bus facilities and canals).
(21) Transportation enhancement activities and transit enhancements defined in 23 U.S.C. 101 and 49 U.S.C. 5302.
(a) An EA shall be prepared by the applicant in consultation with the U.S. DOT agency for each action(s) that is not a CE and does not clearly require the preparation of an EIS, or where the U.S. DOT agency believes an EA would assist in determining the need for an EIS.
(b) The EA shall evaluate the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed action, reasonable alternatives that would avoid or reduce adverse impacts, measures which would mitigate adverse impacts, and environmental enhancements if any that would aid in harmonizing the action with the surrounding community. The EA shall discuss compliance with other related environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders.
(c) The EA is subject to U.S. DOT agency approval before it is made available to the public as a U.S. DOT agency document.
(d) For actions that require an EA, the applicant, in consultation with the U.S. DOT agency, shall do the following:
(1) Conduct interagency coordination in accordance with § 1420.303, beginning at the earliest appropriate time, to advise agencies of the proposed action and to achieve the following objectives: Determine which aspects of the proposed action have potential for social, economic, or environmental impact; identify alternatives and measures which might avoid or mitigate adverse impacts; identify environmental enhancements that might aid in harmonizing the action with the surrounding community; and identify other environmental review and coordination requirements which should be performed concurrently with the EA. The results of interagency coordination to the time of EA approval by the U.S. DOT agency shall be included in the EA.
(2) Provide for public involvement in accordance with the procedures established pursuant to § 1420.305. Public involvement to the time of EA approval by the U.S. DOT agency shall be summarized in the EA.
(e) The EA need not be circulated for comment but the document must be made available for inspection in public places readily accessible to the affected community in accordance with paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section. Notice of availability of the EA, briefly describing the action(s) and its impacts, or a copy of the EA, shall be sent by the applicant to the affected units of Federal, State and local government.
(f) When, in accordance with the public involvement procedures established pursuant to § 1420.305, a public hearing on an action evaluated in an EA is held, the following shall occur:
(1) The EA shall be available at the public hearing and for a minimum of 15 days in advance of the public hearing.
(2) The notice of the public hearing in local newspapers shall announce the availability of the EA and where it may be obtained or reviewed.
(3) Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.4(c) comments shall be submitted in writing to the applicant or the U.S. DOT agency within 30 days of publication of the notice of availability of the EA unless the U.S. DOT agency determines, for good cause, that a different period is warranted.
(g) When, in accordance with the public involvement procedures established pursuant to § 1420.305, a public hearing on an action evaluated in an EA is not held, the following shall occur:
(1) The applicant shall place a notice in a newspaper(s) similar to a public hearing notice at an appropriate stage of development of the action.
(2) The notice shall advise the public of the availability of the EA, state where information concerning the action may be obtained, and invite comments from all parties with an interest in the social, economic, or environmental aspects of the action.
(3) Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.4(c) comments shall be submitted in writing to the applicant or the U.S. DOT agency within 30 days of the publication of the notice unless the U.S. DOT agency determines, for good cause, that a different period is warranted.
(h) If no significant impacts are identified, the applicant shall consider the public and agency comments received; revise the EA as appropriate; furnish the U.S. DOT agency a copy of the revised EA, the public hearing transcript, where applicable, and copies of any comments received and responses thereto; and recommend a FONSI. The revised EA shall also document compliance, to the fullest extent possible, with other related environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the action, or provide reasonable assurance that the requirements will be met. Full compliance with the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the planning regulation (23 CFR part 1410) is required before completion of the FONSI.
(i) If, at any point in the EA process, the U.S. DOT agency determines that the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, the preparation of an EIS will be required.
(j) Any action which normally would be classified as an EA but could involve unusual circumstances, such as, substantial controversy on community impact and/or environmental grounds, will require the U.S. DOT agency, in cooperation with the applicant, to determine if the EA is the appropriate level of documentation.
(a) The U.S. DOT agency will review the EA and other documents submitted pursuant to § 1420.313 (e.g., copies of any hearing transcript and written comments, and the applicant's responses). If the U.S. DOT agency agrees with the applicant's recommendation of a FONSI, it will make such finding in writing and incorporate by reference the EA and any other related documentation.
(b) Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2), for proposed actions which are either similar to ones normally requiring an EIS or are without precedent and the U.S. DOT agency is processing the action with an EA and expects to issue a FONSI, copies of the EA and proposed FONSI shall be made available for review by the public and affected units of government for a minimum of 30 days before the U.S. DOT agency makes its final decision. This public availability shall be announced by a notice similar to a public hearing notice.
(c) After a FONSI has been made by the U.S. DOT agency, a notice of availability of the FONSI shall be sent by the applicant to the affected units of Federal, State and local government, and the document shall be available from the applicant and the U.S. DOT agency upon request by the public. Notice shall also be sent to the State intergovernmental review contacts established under Executive Order 12372.
(d) Where substantial changes are made to the project and/or its potential impacts after the public review period for the EA, the applicant, pursuant to § 1420.323(c), shall make copies of the revised EA and the FONSI available for review by the public and affected units of government for a minimum of 30 days before the U.S. DOT agency makes its final decision, unless the U.S. DOT agency determines, for good cause, that a different period is warranted.
(e) If another Federal agency has issued a FONSI on an action which includes an element proposed for U.S. DOT agency action, the U.S. DOT agency will evaluate the other agency's EA/FONSI. If the U.S. DOT agency determines that this element of the action and its environmental impacts have been adequately identified and assessed, the U.S. DOT agency will issue its own FONSI in accordance with paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section, incorporating the other agency's FONSI and any other related documentation. If environmental issues have not been adequately identified and assessed, the U.S. DOT agency will require appropriate environmental studies to complete the assessment.
(a) A draft EIS shall be prepared when the U.S. DOT agency determines that the action(s) is likely to cause significant impacts on the environment or if the preparation of an EIS is otherwise appropriate. When the decision has been made by the U.S. DOT agency to prepare an EIS, the U.S. DOT agency will publish a Notice of Intent (40 CFR 1508.22) in the
(b) The U.S. DOT agency, in cooperation with the applicant, will publish the Notice of Intent and begin a scoping process to establish the scope of the draft EIS and the work necessary for its preparation. The documented results of the planning process relevant to the action, including the public involvement and interagency coordination that has occurred, must be considered in scoping. Scoping is normally achieved through the actions taken to comply with the public involvement procedures and interagency coordination required by §§ 1420.303 and 1420.305. The scoping process will: Review the range of alternatives and impacts and the major issues to be addressed in the EIS; aid in determining which aspects of the proposed action have potential for social, economic, or environmental impact; help identify measures which might mitigate adverse environmental impacts; identify environmental enhancements that might aid in harmonizing the action with the surrounding community; identify other environmental review and coordination requirements that must be performed concurrently with the EIS preparation; and achieve the other objectives of 40 CFR 1501.7 and environmental streamlining (§ 1420.203). If a public scoping meeting is to be held, it must be announced in the U.S. DOT agency 's Notice of Intent and by an appropriate means at the local level.
(c) The draft EIS shall be prepared by the U.S. DOT agency in cooperation with the applicant or, where permitted by 40 CFR 1506.5, by the applicant with appropriate guidance and participation by the U.S. DOT agency. The draft EIS shall evaluate all reasonable alternatives and may rely on information developed in accordance with 23 CFR part 1410. The draft EIS shall discuss the reasons why other alternatives, which may have been considered, were eliminated from detailed study. The draft EIS shall evaluate the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed action, reasonable alternatives that would avoid or reduce adverse impacts, measures which would mitigate adverse impacts, and environmental enhancements that would aid in harmonizing the action with the surrounding community. Alternatives must be sufficiently well-defined to allow full evaluation of the specific alignment and design variations that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts. The draft EIS shall summarize the public involvement and interagency coordination to the time of its approval. The draft EIS shall also summarize the studies, reviews, consultations, and coordination required by other related environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders to the extent appropriate at this stage in the environmental process.
(d) The U.S. DOT agency, when satisfied that the draft EIS complies with NEPA requirements, will approve the draft EIS for circulation by signing and dating the cover sheet.
(e) A lead, joint lead, or a cooperating agency shall be responsible for printing and distributing the draft EIS. The initial printing of the draft EIS shall be in sufficient quantity to meet requests for copies which can reasonably be expected from agencies, organizations, and individuals. Normally, copies will be furnished free of charge. However, with U.S. DOT agency concurrence, the party requesting the draft EIS may be charged a fee which is not more than the actual cost of reproducing the copy and also must be informed of the nearest location where the draft EIS may be reviewed without charge.
(f) The draft EIS shall be circulated for comment by the applicant on behalf of the U.S. DOT agency. The draft EIS shall be made available to the public and transmitted to agencies for comment no later than the time the document is filed with the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.9. The draft EIS shall be transmitted to the following:
(1) Public officials, interest groups, and members of the public known to have an interest in the proposed action or alternatives;
(2) Federal, State and local government agencies expected to have jurisdiction or responsibility over, or interest or expertise in, the action, and to the State intergovernmental review contacts established under Executive Order 12372; and
(3) Neighboring States and Federal land management entities which may be affected by any of the alternatives.
(g) Public hearing requirements are to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of § 1420.305 and this section. Whenever a public hearing is held, the draft EIS shall be available at the public hearing and for a minimum of 15 days in advance of the public hearing. The availability of the draft EIS shall be mentioned, and public comments requested, in any public hearing notice and at any public hearing presentation. If a public hearing is not held, a notice shall be placed in a newspaper similar to a public hearing notice advising where the draft EIS is available for review, how copies may be obtained, and where the comments should be sent.
(h) Through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability (40 CFR 1506.10), the U.S. DOT agency shall establish a period of not less than 45 days for the receipt of comments on the draft EIS. The draft EIS or a transmittal letter sent with each copy of the draft EIS shall identify where comments are to be sent and when the comment period ends.
(a)(1) After circulation of a draft EIS and consideration of comments received, a final EIS shall be prepared by the U.S. DOT agency in cooperation with the applicant or, where permitted by 40 CFR 1506.5, by the applicant with appropriate guidance and participation by the U.S. DOT agency. Preparation of the final EIS will involve such additional public involvement, interagency coordination, and engineering or environmental studies as are necessary to consider the appropriateness of refinements in the alternatives and the incorporation of mitigation measures and environmental enhancements in response to comments received on the draft EIS.
(2) Every reasonable effort shall be made to resolve interagency disagreements on actions before processing the final EIS. If major issues remain unresolved, the final EIS shall identify those issues and the coordination and other efforts made to resolve them.
(3) The final EIS shall evaluate all reasonable alternatives considered and identify the preferred alternative. It shall also discuss substantive comments received on the draft EIS and responses thereto, summarize public involvement and interagency coordination, and describe the environmental design features, including mitigation measures and environmental enhancements, that are incorporated into the proposed action. Environmental design features or other mitigation measures presented as commitments in the final EIS shall be incorporated into the action. The final EIS shall also document compliance with other related environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the action, and, if full compliance is not possible, provide reasonable assurance that the requirements will be met.
(b) The U.S. DOT agency will indicate approval of the final EIS by signing and dating the cover page. Approval of the final EIS does not commit the U.S. DOT agency to approve any future grant request.
(c) The initial printing of the final EIS shall be in sufficient quantity to meet the request for copies which can be reasonably expected from agencies, organizations, and individuals. Normally, copies will be furnished free of charge. However, with U.S. DOT agency concurrence, the party requesting the final EIS may be charged a fee which is not more than the actual cost of reproducing the copy and also must be informed of the nearest location where the final EIS may be reviewed without charge.
(d) The final EIS shall be transmitted to any persons, organizations, or agencies that made substantive comments on the draft EIS and to anyone requesting a copy, no later than the time the document is filed with the U.S. EPA. In the case of lengthy documents, the U.S. DOT agency may allow alternative circulation processes in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.19. The applicant shall publish a notice of availability in local newspapers and make the final EIS available through the mechanism established pursuant to DOT Order 4600.13
(a) The U.S. DOT agency will complete and sign a record of decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after the U.S. EPA publication in the
(b) After issuance of a ROD, the U.S. DOT agency shall issue a revised ROD if it wishes to approve an alternative which was not identified as the preferred alternative but was fully evaluated in the final EIS or proposes to make substantial changes to the mitigation measures or findings discussed in the original ROD. Before issuing the revised ROD, the U.S. DOT agency shall consider whether additional notification, interagency coordination, and public involvement are needed in accordance with § 1420.303 and § 1420.305. To the extent practicable the approved revised ROD shall be provided to all persons, organizations and agencies that received a copy of the Final EIS pursuant to § 1420.319(d).
(c) Upon approval of the ROD, the mitigation and environmental enhancements in the final EIS associated with the alternative selected in the ROD become enforceable conditions of any subsequent grant related to the action or other DOT agency approval of the action. The U.S. DOT agency will ensure implementation of mitigation and environmental enhancements as described in § 1420.113.
(a) A written evaluation of the draft EIS shall be prepared by the applicant in cooperation with the U.S. DOT agency if a final EIS is not approved by the U.S. DOT agency within three years from the date of the draft EIS circulation. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether a supplement to the draft EIS or a new draft EIS is needed.
(b) A written evaluation of the final EIS will be required before further approvals may be granted if major steps to advance the action (e.g., authority to undertake final design, authority to acquire a significant portion of the right-of-way, or approval of the plans, specifications and estimates) have not occurred within three years after the approval of the final EIS, final EIS supplement, or the last major DOT agency approval or grant.
(c) After approval of the EIS, FONSI, or CE designation, the applicant shall consult with the U.S. DOT agency prior to requesting any major approvals or grants to establish whether or not the approved environmental document or CE designation remains valid for the requested U.S. DOT action. These consultations will be documented when determined necessary by the U.S. DOT agency.
(d) A re-evaluation under this section shall include additional notification, interagency coordination, and public involvement as appropriate in accordance with § 1420.303 and § 1420.305.
(a) A draft EIS or final EIS may be supplemented whenever the U.S. DOT agency determines that supplementation would improve decisionmaking, better inform the agency or the public, or serve other purposes. An EIS shall be supplemented whenever the U.S. DOT agency determines that:
(1) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS.
(2) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS.
(b) A supplemental EIS will not be necessary where:
(1) The changes to the proposed action, new information, or new circumstances result in the actual lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS; or
(2) The U.S. DOT agency decides to approve an alternative fully evaluated in an approved final EIS but not identified as the preferred alternative. In such a case, a ROD shall be prepared and circulated in accordance with § 1420.321.
(c) Where the U.S. DOT agency is uncertain of the significance of the new impacts, the applicant will develop appropriate environmental studies or, if the U.S. DOT agency deems appropriate, an EA to assess the impacts of the changes, new information, or new circumstances. If, based upon the studies, the U.S. DOT agency determines that a supplemental EIS is not necessary, the U.S. DOT agency shall so indicate in the project file.
(d) A supplement is to be developed using the same process and format (i.e., draft EIS, final EIS, and ROD) as an original EIS, except that scoping is not required. Public involvement and interagency coordination commensurate with the nature and scope of the supplemental EIS shall be conducted in accordance with § 1420.305 and the public involvement procedures developed thereunder.
(e) In some cases, a supplemental EIS may be required to address issues of limited scope, such as the extent of proposed mitigation or the evaluation of location or design variations for a limited portion of the overall project. Where this is the case, the preparation of a supplemental EIS shall not necessarily prevent the granting of new approvals; require the withdrawal of previous approvals; or require the suspension of project activities for any activity not directly affected by the supplement. If the changes in question are of such magnitude to require a new evaluation of the entire action, or more than a limited portion of the overall action, the U.S. DOT agency shall suspend any activities which would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives, until the supplemental EIS is completed.
The definitions contained in the CEQ regulation (40 CFR 1508) and in titles 23 (23 U.S.C. 101) and 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 14202) are applicable except as modified in § 1420.403.
The following definitions apply to this part and to part 1430 of this chapter:
(1) As part of the metropolitan or statewide transportation planning process under 23 CFR part 1410,
(2) To determine the NEPA class of action and scope of analysis, and/or
(3) To provide information to be included in a NEPA decision process.
23 U.S.C. 138 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 303; 49 CFR 1.48 and 1.51.
The purpose of this part is to implement 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 which were originally enacted as section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and are still commonly referred to as section 4(f).
(a) The U.S. DOT agency may approve a transportation project that uses publicly owned land from a significant public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any land from a significant historic site only if the U.S. DOT agency has determined that:
(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property; and
(2) The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) This part applies to transportation projects that require an approval by the U.S. DOT agency, where the U.S. DOT agency has sufficient control and the statutory authority to condition the project or approval.
(b) The U.S. DOT agency will determine the applicability of section 4(f) in accordance with this part.
(c) This part does not apply to or alter approvals by the U.S. DOT agency made prior to the effective date of this regulation.
(a) Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section and § 1430.111, use of land occurs:
(1) When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;
(2) When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse to the statutory purpose of preserving the natural beauty of that land, as determined by the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section; or
(3) When there is a constructive use of land as determined by the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) A temporary occupancy of land occurs when the use is so minimal that it does not constitute a use within the meaning of section 4(f) (§ 1420.403) when the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The duration of the occupancy must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land;
(2) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the section 4(f) resource are minimal;
(3) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purposes of the resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis;
(4) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project; and
(5) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions.
(c) A constructive use of section 4(f) land occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land from the section 4(f) resource, but the impacts of the project on the resource due to its proximity are so severe that the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for the protection of section 4(f) are substantially impaired. The U.S. DOT agencies have reviewed the following situations and have determined that constructive use occurs when:
(1) The projected noise level increase attributable to the transportation project substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility that is a resource protected by section 4(f), such as hearing the performances at a public outdoor amphitheater, sleeping in the sleeping area of a public campground, enjoyment of a historic site where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute of the site's significance, or enjoyment of an urban park where serenity and quiet are significant attributes;
(2) The proximity of the project to the section 4(f) resource substantially impairs aesthetic features or attributes of a resource protected by section 4(f), where such features or attributes make an important contribution to the value of the resource. For example, substantial impairment of visual or aesthetic qualities occurs where a transportation structure is located in such proximity that it obstructs or eliminates the primary views of an architecturally significant historical building, or substantially detracts from the setting of a park or historic site which derives its value in substantial part from its setting;
(3) The project restricts access to the section 4(f) property and, as a result, substantially diminishes the utility of the resource;
(4) The vibration impact from operation of the project substantially impairs the use of a section 4(f) resource, such as vibration levels from a rail project that are great enough to affect the structural integrity of a historic building or substantially diminish the utility of the building; or
(5) The ecological intrusion of the project substantially diminishes the value of wildlife habitat in a wildlife or waterfowl refuge adjacent to the project or substantially interferes with the access to a wildlife or waterfowl refuge, when such access is necessary for established wildlife migration or critical life cycle processes.
(a) Consideration under section 4(f) is required when the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over a park, recreation area or refuge determine that the entire section 4(f) resource is significant. In the absence of such a determination, the section 4(f) land will be presumed to be significant, unless the U.S. DOT agency and the officials with jurisdiction have agreed, formally or informally, that the resource is not significant. The U.S. DOT agency will review the significance determination to assure its reasonableness.
(b) Section 4(f) applies to all properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The U.S. DOT agency, in cooperation with the applicant, will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate local officials to identify such historic sites. Section 4(f) applies only to historic sites on or eligible for the National Register unless the U.S. DOT agency determines that the application of section 4(f) to a historic site is otherwise appropriate.
(a) Consideration under section 4(f) is not required for any park road or parkway project developed in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204.
(b) Consideration under section 4(f) is not required for trail-related projects funded through the Symms National Recreational Trails Act of 1991 (16 U.S.C. 1261).
(c) Consideration under section 4(f) is not required for “transportation enhancement activities” as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and transit enhancements as defined in 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)(15) if:
(1) The use of the section 4(f) property is solely for the purpose of preserving or enhancing the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for section 4(f) protection; and
(2) The Federal, State, or local official having jurisdiction over the property agrees in writing that the use is solely for the purpose of preserving or enhancing the section 4(f) activities, features, or attributes of the property and will, in fact, accomplish this purpose.
(d) Where Federal lands or other public land holdings (e.g., State forests) are administered under statutes permitting management for multiple uses and are, in fact, managed for multiple uses, section 4(f) applies only to those portions of such lands which function as significant public parks, recreation areas, or wildlife refuges, or which are designated in the plans of the administering agency as being for, significant park, recreation, or wildlife purposes or historic sites. The determination as to which lands so function or are so designated, and the significance of those lands, shall be made by the officials having jurisdiction over the lands. The determination of significance shall apply to the entire area of lands which so function or are so designated. The U.S. DOT agency will review these determinations to assure their reasonableness.
(e) Consideration under section 4(f) is not required for the restoration, rehabilitation, or maintenance of transportation facilities that are on or eligible for the National Register when:
(1) Such work will not adversely affect the historic qualities of the facility that caused it to be on or eligible for the National Register, and
(2) The SHPO has been consulted and has not objected to the U.S. DOT agency finding in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(f) Archeological sites.
(1) Section 4(f) applies to all archeological sites on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register, including those discovered during construction except as set forth in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. When section 4(f) requirements apply to archeological sites discovered during construction, the section 4(f) process will be expedited. In such cases, the evaluation of feasible and prudent alternatives will take into account the level of investment already made in the project. The review process, including the consultation with other agencies, will be shortened as appropriate.
(2) Section 4(f) requirements do not apply to archeological sites where the U.S. DOT agency, after consultation with the SHPO, determines that the archeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place. This exception applies both to situations where data recovery is undertaken or where the U.S. DOT agency decides, with agreement of the SHPO, not to recover the data in the resource.
(g) Designations of park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites are sometimes made, and determinations of significance changed, late in the development of a project. With the exception of the treatment of archeological resources in paragraph (f) of this section, the U.S. DOT agency may permit a project to proceed without consideration under section 4(f) if the property interest in the section 4(f) lands was acquired for transportation purposes prior to the designation or change in the determination of significance and if an adequate effort was made to identify properties protected by section 4(f) prior to acquisition.
(h) Constructive use normally does not occur when:
(1) Compliance with the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR part 800 for proximity impacts of the proposed action, on a site listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places results in an agreement of no adverse effect;
(2) The projected traffic noise levels of a proposed nearby highway project do not exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria given in Table 1, 23 CFR part 772, or the projected operational noise levels of a proposed nearby transit project do not exceed the noise impact criteria in the FTA guidelines (Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, April 1995, available from the FTA offices);
(3) The projected noise levels exceed the relevant threshold in paragraph (h)(2) of this section because of high existing noise, but the increase in the projected noise levels if the proposed project is constructed, when compared with the projected noise levels if the project is not built, is barely perceptible (3 dBA or less);
(4) A proposed transportation project will have proximity impacts on a section 4(f) property, but a governmental agency's right-of-way acquisition, an applicant's adoption of project location, or the U.S. DOT agency approval of a final NEPA document established the location of the project before the designation, establishment, or change in the significance of the section 4(f) property. However, if the property in question is a historic site that would be eligible for the National Register except for its age at the time that the project location is established, and construction of the project would begin after the site became eligible, then constructive use of the historic site may occur and such use must be evaluated;
(5) There are proximity impacts to a proposed public park, recreation area, or wildlife refuge, but the proposed transportation project and the resource are concurrently planned or developed. The following examples of such concurrent planning or development include, but are not limited to:
(i) Designation or donation of property for the specific purpose of such concurrent development by the entity with jurisdiction or ownership of the property for both the potential transportation project and the section 4(f) resource; or
(ii) Designation, donation, planning or development of property by two or more governmental agencies, with jurisdiction for the potential transportation project and the section 4(f) resource, in consultation with each other;
(iii) Overall (combined) proximity impacts caused by a proposed project do not substantially impair the activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under section 4(f);
(iv) Proximity impacts will be mitigated to a condition equivalent to, or better than, that which would occur under a no-build scenario;
(v) Change in accessibility will not substantially diminish the utilization of the section 4(f) resource; or
(vi) Vibration levels from project construction activities are mitigated, through advance planning and monitoring of the activities, to levels that do not cause a substantial impairment of the section 4(f) resource.
(a) Alternatives to avoid the use of section 4(f) properties and measures to minimize harm to such land shall be developed and evaluated by the applicant in cooperation with the U.S. DOT agency. Such evaluation shall be initiated early when alternatives are under study. An alternative that avoids section 4(f) property must be preferred unless the evaluation demonstrates that there are unique problems or unusual factors associated with it, or that the cost, the social, economic, or environmental impacts, or the community disruption resulting from such alternative reach extraordinary magnitudes.
(b) In accordance with the concept of the NEPA umbrella in 23 CFR 1420.109, the section 4(f) evaluation is normally presented in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS), the environmental assessment (EA), or the categorical exclusion (CE) documentation. The evaluation may incorporate relevant information from the planning process in accordance with § 1430.119. A separate section 4(f) evaluation may be necessary as described in section § 1430.115.
(c) The section 4(f) evaluation shall be provided for coordination and comment to the officials having jurisdiction over the section 4(f) property and to the U.S. Department of the Interior, and as appropriate to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. A minimum of 45 days shall be established by the U.S. DOT agency for receipt of comments.
(d) When adequate support exists for a section 4(f) determination, the discussion in the final EIS, the finding of no significant impact (FONSI), the CE documentation, or the separate section 4(f) evaluation shall specifically address the following:
(1) The reasons why the alternatives to avoid a section 4(f) property are not feasible and prudent; and
(2) All measures incorporated into the project that will be taken to minimize harm to the section 4(f) property.
(e) The U.S. DOT agency is not required to determine that there is no constructive use. However, such a determination may be made at the discretion of the U.S. DOT agency. When a constructive use determination is made, it will be based, to the extent it reasonably can, upon the following:
(1) Identification of the current activities, features, or attributes of a resource that qualify it for protection under section 4(f) and which may be sensitive to proximity impacts;
(2) An analysis of the proximity impacts of the proposed project on the section 4(f) resource. If any of the proximity impacts will be mitigated, only the net impact need be considered in this analysis. The analysis should also describe and consider the impacts which could reasonably be expected if the proposed project were not implemented, since such impacts should not be attributed to the proposed project; and
(3) Consultation, on the above identification and analysis, with the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge, or historic site.
(f) For actions processed with an EIS, the U.S. DOT agency will make the section 4(f) determination either in its approval of the final EIS or in the record of decision (ROD). Where the section 4(f) approval is documented in the final EIS, the U.S. DOT agency will summarize the basis for its section 4(f) approval in the ROD. Actions requiring the use of section 4(f) property, and
(g) The final section 4(f) evaluation will be reviewed for legal sufficiency.
(a) Circulation of a separate section 4(f) evaluation will be required when:
(1) A proposed modification of the alignment or design would require the use of section 4(f) land after the CE, FONSI, draft EIS, or final EIS has been processed;
(2) A proposed modification of the alignment, design, or measures to minimize harm after an original section 4(f) approval, would result in a substantial increase in the use of section 4(f) land or a substantial reduction in the measures to minimize harm included in the project;
(3) The U.S. DOT agency determines, after processing the CE, FONSI, draft EIS, or final EIS that section 4(f) applies to a property; or
(4) An agency whose actions are not subject to section 4(f) requirements is the lead agency for the NEPA process on an action that involves section 4(f) property and requires a U.S. DOT agency action.
(b) If the U.S. DOT agency determines under paragraph (a) of this section or otherwise, that section 4(f) is applicable after the CE, FONSI, or ROD has been processed, the decision to prepare and circulate a section 4(f) evaluation will not necessarily require the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document. Where a separately circulated section 4(f) evaluation is prepared after the CE, FONSI, or ROD has been processed, such evaluation does not necessarily:
(1) Prevent the granting of new approvals;
(2) Require the withdrawal of previous approvals; or
(3) Require the suspension of project activities for any activity not affected by the new section 4(f) evaluation.
The U.S. DOT agency, in consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior and other agencies, as appropriate, may make a programmatic section 4(f) determination for a class of similar projects. Uses of section 4(f) land covered by a programmatic section 4(f) evaluation shall be documented and coordinated as specified in the programmatic section 4(f) evaluation.
(a) An analysis required by section 4(f) may involve different levels of detail where the section 4(f) involvement is addressed during the planning process or in a tiered EIS.
(b) When a planning document or a first-tier EIS is intended to provide the basis for subsequent project development as provided in § 1420.201 and 40 CFR 1502.20, the detailed information necessary to complete the section 4(f) evaluation may not be available at that stage in the development of the action. In such cases, an evaluation should be made of the potential impacts that a proposed action will have on section 4(f) land and whether those impacts could have a bearing on the decision to be made. A preliminary determination may be made at this time as to whether there are feasible and prudent locations or alternatives for the action to avoid the use of section 4(f) land. This preliminary determination shall consider all possible planning to minimize harm, to the extent that the level of detail at this stage allows. It is recognized that such planning at this stage will normally be limited to ensuring that opportunities to minimize harm at subsequent stages in the project development process have not been precluded by decisions made at this stage. This preliminary determination is then incorporated into official planning documents or the first-tier EIS.
(c) A section 4(f) approval made when additional design details are available will include a determination that:
(1) The preliminary section 4(f) determination made pursuant to paragraph (a) remains valid; and
(2) The criteria of § 1430.103 and § 1430.113(a) have been met.
The definitions contained in 23 CFR 1420.403, 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 49 U.S.C. 5302, and 40 CFR part 1508 are applicable to this part.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Transit Administration proposes to amend chapter VI of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
3. Revise part 622 to read as follows:
23 U.S.C. 109, 128, 134 and 138; 42 U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-4, 4321
The regulations for complying with this subpart are set forth in subpart A of 23 CFR part 1420.
The regulations for complying with this subpart are set forth in subpart B of 23 CFR part 1420.
The regulations for complying with this subpart are set forth in subpart C of 23 CFR part 1420.
The regulations for complying with this subpart are set forth in subpart D of 23 CFR part 1420.
4. Add a new part 623 to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 303; 49 CFR 1.51.
The regulations for complying with 49 U.S.C. 303 are set forth in 23 CFR part 1430.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
The FHWA proposes to implement section 5206(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted on June 9, 1998, requiring Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects funded through the highway trust fund to conform to the National ITS Architecture and applicable standards. Because it is highly unlikely that the entire National ITS Architecture would be fully implemented by any single metropolitan area or State, the FHWA proposes in this NPRM (the ITS Architecture NPRM) that the National ITS Architecture be used to develop a local implementation of the National ITS Architecture, which is referred to as an “ITS regional architecture.” Therefore, conformance with the National ITS Architecture is defined under this proposal as development of an ITS regional architecture based on the National ITS Architecture, and the subsequent adherence of ITS projects to the ITS regional architecture. The ITS regional architecture would consist of a concept of operations and a conceptual design, which would draw from the National ITS Architecture, but would be tailored to address the local situation and ITS investment needs. The ITS regional architecture follows from the ITS integration strategy developed in another NPRM entitled “Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning” also published in today's
Written comments must be received on or before August 23, 2000. For dates of public information meetings see
Signed, written comments should refer to the docket number that appears at the top of this document and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-40, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. All comments received will be available for examination at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard. For addresses of public information meetings see
Internet users may access all comments received by the US DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a computer, modem, and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the
The document may also be viewed at the DOT's ITS home page at
The DOT will hold a series of seven public briefings within the comment period for the NPRM. The purposes of these briefings is to explain the content of the NPRM and encourage public input to the final rulemaking. The meetings will address this NPRM, a companion NPRM on the metropolitan and statewide planning process (FHWA RIN 2125-AE62; FTA RIN 2132-AA66), and the NPRM entitled, “NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act of 1969] and Related Procedures for Transportation Decisionmaking, Protection of Public Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites” (NEPA/NPRM; FHWA RIN 2125-AE64; FTA RIN 2132-AA43). The meetings will be scheduled from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the locations listed below. Changes in the information below will be made available after the publication of this NPRM through the FHWA and the FTA websites, other public announcement avenues and the newsletters and websites of major stakeholder groups. Individuals wishing information but without access to these sources may contact the individuals listed above.
The structure of the meetings will emphasize brief presentations by the DOT staff regarding the content of the NPRMs. A period for clarifying questions will be provided. Under current statutory and regulatory provisions, the DOT staff will not be permitted to engage in a substantive dialog regarding what the content of the NPRMs and the final regulations should be. Attendees wishing to express ideas and thoughts regarding the final content of the rules should direct those comments to the docket. Briefing sites will include: Boston, MA, Auditorium, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, June 9, 2000; Atlanta, GA, Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree Street, June 20, 2000; Washington, D.C., Marriott Metro Center, 775 12th Street NW, June 23, 2000; Chicago, IL, Holiday Inn Mart Plaza, 350 North Orleans Street, June 27, 2000; Denver, CO, Marriott City Center, 1701 California Street, June 30, 2000; Dallas, TX, Hyatt Regency Dallas, 300 Reunion Boulevard, July 11, 2000; and San Francisco, CA, Radisson Miyako, 1625 Post Street, July 19, 2000.
As part of the outreach process planned for these proposed rules, the FHWA/FTA will be conducting a national teleconference on June 15, 2000 from 1-4 p.m. eastern time, through the auspices of the Center for Transportation and the Environment at North Carolina State University. The teleconference will be accessible through numerous downlink locations nationwide and further information can be obtained from Katie McDermott at kpm@unity.ncsu.edu. The purpose of the teleconference is to describe the proposed new statewide and metropolitan planning, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) rules. An overview of each of the three Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) will be presented and the audience (remote and local) will have opportunities to ask questions and seek clarification of
Section 5206(e) of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, at 457, requires ITS projects funded through the highway trust fund to conform to the National ITS Architecture, applicable or provisional standards, and protocols.
The proposed implementing regulations for this provision of law are contained in two NPRMs. The first NPRM for revisions to the Statewide and Metropolitan transportation planning processes, 23 CFR part 1410, published separately in today's
Intelligent transportation systems represent the application of information processing, communications technologies, advanced control strategies, and electronics to the field of transportation. Information technology in general is most effective and cost beneficial when systems are integrated and interoperable. The greatest benefits in terms of safety, efficiency, and costs are realized when electronic systems are systematically integrated to form a whole in which information is shared with all and systems are interoperable.
In the transportation sector, successful ITS integration and interoperability require addressing two different and yet fundamental issues; that of technical and institutional integration. “Technical integration” of electronic systems is a complex issue that requires considerable up-front planning and meticulous execution for electronic information to be stored and accessed by various parts of a system. “Institutional integration” involves coordination between various agencies and jurisdictions to achieve seamless operations and/or interoperability. In order to achieve effective institutional integration of systems, agencies and jurisdictions must agree on the benefits of ITS and the value of being part of an integrated system. They must agree on roles, responsibilities, and shared operational strategies. Finally, they must agree on standards and, in some cases, technologies and operating procedures to ensure interoperability. In some instances, there may be multiple standards that could be implemented for a single interface. In this case, agencies will need to agree on a common standard or agree to implement a technical translator that will allow dissimilar standards to interoperate. This coordination effort is a considerable task that will happen over time, not all at once. Transportation organizations, such as, transit properties, State and local transportation agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations must be fully committed to achieving institutional integration in order for integration to be successful. The transportation agencies must also coordinate with agencies for which transportation is a key, but not a primary part of their business, such as, emergency management and law enforcement agencies.
Successfully dealing with both the technical and institutional issues requires a high-level conceptual view of the future system and careful, comprehensive planning. The framework for the system is referred to as the “architecture.” The architecture defines the system components, key functions, the organizations involved, and the type of information shared between organizations and parts of the system. The architecture is, therefore, fundamental to successful system implementation, integration, and interoperability.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, initiated Federal funding for the ITS program. The program at that time was largely focused on research and development and operational tests of technologies. A key part of the program was the development of the “National ITS Architecture.” The National ITS Architecture provides a common structure for the design of ITS systems. The architecture defines the functions that could be performed to satisfy user requirements and how the various elements of the system might connect to share information. It is not a system design, nor is it a design concept. However, it does define the framework around which multiple design approaches can be developed, each one specifically tailored to meet the needs of the user, while maintaining the benefits of a common approach. The National ITS Architecture, Version 3.0 can be obtained from the ITS Joint Program Office of the DOT in CD-ROM format and on the ITS web site http://www.its.dot.gov. The effort to develop a common national system architecture to guide the evolution of ITS in the United States over the next 20 years and beyond has been managed since September 1993 by the FHWA. The National ITS Architecture describes in detail what types of interfaces should exist between ITS components and how they will exchange information and work together to deliver the given ITS user service requirements. The National ITS Architecture and standards can be used to guide multi-level government and private-sector business planners in developing and deploying nationally compatible systems. By ensuring system compatibility, the DOT hopes to accelerate ITS integration nationwide and develop a strong, diverse marketplace for related products and services.
It is highly unlikely that the entire National ITS Architecture will be fully implemented by any single metropolitan area or State. For example, the National ITS Architecture contains information flows for an Automated Highway System that is unlikely to be part of most regional implementations. However, the architecture has considerable value as a framework for local governments in the development of regional architectures by identifying the many functions and information sharing opportunities that may be desired. It can assist local governments with both of the key elements—technical interoperability and institutional coordination.
The National ITS Architecture, because it aids in the development of a high-level conceptual view of a future system, can assist local governments in identifying applications that will support their future transportation needs. From an institutional coordination perspective, the National ITS Architecture helps local transportation planners to identify other stakeholders who may need to be involved and to identify potential integration opportunities. From a technical interoperability perspective, the National ITS Architecture provides a logical and physical architecture and
As noted above, section 5206(e) of the TEA-21 requires ITS projects funded from the highway trust fund to conform to the National ITS Architecture, applicable or provisional standards, and protocols. The purpose of the statute is to accelerate the deployment of interoperable ITS systems. Use of the National ITS Architecture provides significant benefits to local transportation planners and deployers as follows:
1. The National ITS Architecture provides assistance with technical design. It saves considerable design time because physical and logical architectures are already defined.
2. Information flows and process specifications are defined in the National ITS Architecture, allowing local governments to accelerate the process of defining system functionality.
3. The architecture identifies standards that will support interoperability now and into the future, but it leaves selection of technologies to local decisionmakers.
4. The architecture provides a sound engineering framework for integrating multiple applications and services in a region.
The existing transportation planning processes under titles 23 and 49, U.S.C., require a continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated approach to assessing transportation needs, evaluating a range of solutions, and providing a coordinated response through transportation investments. The TEA-21 further emphasizes operations and management of the transportation network as a key consideration in transportation planning. The transportation planning process is currently institutionalized through statewide and metropolitan planning.
Effective implementation of ITS requires careful and comprehensive planning. This notice of proposed rulemaking and the accompanying NPRM on Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning, published separately in today's
Consequently, the DOT is issuing an NPRM (23 CFR part 1410), published separately in today's
During the development of the metropolitan and/or statewide transportation plan, if ITS applications are envisioned, the transportation plan shall address an ITS integration strategy. Provision shall be made to include participation of key operating agencies in the development of the integration strategy. The ITS integration strategy shall clearly assess existing and future ITS systems, including their functions and information sharing expectations. Planning for ITS shall produce an agreement among the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), State DOTs, transit operators and other agencies which addresses policy and operational issues affecting the successful implementation of the ITS integration strategy. The policy statement shall address provisions to ensure ITS project interoperability, utilization of ITS related standards, and the routine operation of the projects. Further, as provided in proposed 23 CFR 1410.322 (b)(11), the transportation plan shall identify:
(1) Major regional ITS initiatives (a program of related projects that are multi-jurisdictional and/or multi-modal),
(2) ITS projects of a scale to affect regional integration of ITS systems, and
(3) ITS projects that directly support national interoperability.
The ITS integration strategy that is part of the transportation plan would be general in content, articulating key policies and a vision for the planning area. More detailed conceptual designs and operational procedures, as agreed upon by key stakeholders, are necessary to support project development. This proposed rule seeks to implement this approach as part of the project development process. There are two distinct sections to the proposal. The first deals with development of an ITS regional architecture that lays the foundation for integration in a metropolitan planning area or State. The second deals with final project design and ensuring conformance to both the ITS integration strategy and the ITS regional architecture.
This NPRM on the ITS Architecture and Standards would require development of a local implementation of the National ITS Architecture referred to as an ITS regional architecture that is consistent with the ITS integration strategy. The ITS regional architecture would be tailored to meet local needs, meaning that it may not address the entire National ITS Architecture and may also address services not included by the National ITS Architecture. The ITS regional architecture may be developed either through an initial regional development effort or incrementally as major ITS investments are anticipated. In either case, the ITS regional architecture should contain a concept of operations and a conceptual design that addresses the integration of new ITS projects as they are advanced. In this context, a “region” is a geographical area that is based on local needs for sharing information and coordinating operational strategies among multiple projects. A region can be specified at a metropolitan, statewide, multi-State, or corridor level. While “regions” for ITS development may be at any geographic scale, responsibility for planning rests with either the MPO or State planning process. For ITS purposes, a region is any geographic area designated by the planning process. The responsible planning entity (MPO or State) will address the ITS region and ITS planning. Where ITS regions cross planning boundaries, they should be coordinated by the appropriate planning entities (MPOs or States). For ITS Commercial Vehicle Operation projects, the size of the region should not be smaller than a State, with consideration for multi-State, national, and international applications. A regional approach promotes integration of transportation systems. The size of the region should reflect the breadth of the integration of transportation systems and may be at a metropolitan, statewide, multi-State or corridor level.
Additionally, the proposed regulations would require that all ITS projects be developed using a system engineering process, again recommending the use of the National ITS Architecture as a resource. Project development would be based on the relevant portions of the ITS integration strategy and the ITS regional architecture which the project implements. ITS projects would be required to use applicable ITS standards that have been officially adopted by the DOT and applicable interoperability tests officially adopted by the DOT. Where multiple standards exist, it will be the responsibility of the stakeholders to determine how best to achieve the interoperability they desire.
The FHWA project oversight procedures would remain consistent with routine Federal-aid project oversight. Documentation of the proposed ITS requirements would be required to be included in project documents. Any changes made in project design that impact either the ITS integration strategy or the ITS regional architecture would be documented and the appropriate revisions made and agreed to in the ITS integration strategy and/or the ITS regional architecture. All ITS projects that advance to design or preliminary engineering would be required to conform to the system engineering and conformity requirements immediately upon the effective date of a final rule on the National ITS Architecture and Standards. In the event that an applicable ITS regional architecture or ITS integration strategy does not exist, the applicable portions of the National ITS Architecture would be identified and used as the basis for analysis. All requirements of this proposal would apply for two years from the effective date of a final rule. Replacement of existing systems would not be required.
In the spring of 1998, the FHWA held ten nationwide outreach meetings on a proposed conceptual approach for ensuring consistency with the National ITS Architecture. These meetings were intended to generate discussion and solicit input from the perspective of many different transportation stakeholders on the feasibility of the proposed FHWA approach. Meetings were attended by representatives of Federal, State, local and regional transportation agencies, public sector agencies that rely on Federal-aid funds for projects with ITS components, and interested parties from universities and the private sector. In general, stakeholders expressed the opinion that the interim guidance and the use of system engineering principles represent good practice. Stakeholders expressed a requirement for straightforward, unambiguous guidance that could be implemented with a minimum of additional paperwork, and largely agreed that the interim guidance met this requirement. For more information please see “National ITS Architecture Consistency Outreach Meetings: Summary Findings (1998)” which is included as part of this docket.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date shown above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the FHWA docket identified above and will be considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment closing period. In addition to late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the docket relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material.
The FHWA has preliminarily determined that this proposed action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and within the meaning of the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This determination is based upon the regulatory assessment of the proposed rule that indicates that the annual impact of the rule would not exceed $100 million nor would it adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, public health, safety, or State, local, or tribal governments.
The FHWA has prepared a preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) to accompany the NPRM. A copy of the PRE is included in the docket. The FHWA believes that this proposed action would implement the requirements of section 5206(e) of the TEA-21. Although this law requires ITS projects funded through the highway trust fund to conform to the National ITS Architecture, the FHWA would require development of a regional architecture consisting of a concept of operations and a conceptual design, and would require use of the system engineering process, applicable or provisional standards, and protocols, and interoperability tests developed by the DOT. In developing the proposed rule, the FHWA has sought to allow broad discretion to those entities impacted by the rule, in levels of response and approach, that are appropriate to particular plans and projects while conforming to the requirements of TEA-21. The FHWA has considered the costs and benefits of effective implementation of ITS through careful and comprehensive planning. ITS becomes part of the transportation planning process through the locally defined ITS Integration Strategy. This ITS strategy would guide future investment decisions and foster the benefits of integration and interoperability. Developing the strategy as part of the overall transportation planning process would ensure that ITS is given appropriate consideration as a solution for future transportation needs and services.
The total costs of this NPRM over 10 years is estimated between $38.1 million and $44.4 million (the net present value over 10 years is between $22.3 million and $31.2 million). The annual constant dollar impact is estimated to range between $3.2 million and $4.4 million. These 10-year cost estimates include transportation planning cost increases, to MPOs ranging from $10.8 million to $13.5 million, and to States from $5.2 million to $7.8 million. Estimated costs to implementing agencies for the development of regional architectures range between $15.8 million and $23.2 million.
These costs do not include additional implementation costs for individual projects as commenters found the additional cost extremely difficult to estimate. Those who responded suggested that the increased cost of project implementation over current good practice would be minimal. However, because of the limited amount of data available on the additional implementation costs for individual projects, the FHWA is seeking additional data on this issue from commenters to this NPRM.
The anticipated non-monetary benefits derived include savings from the avoidance of duplicative development, reduced overall development time, and earlier detection of potential incompatibilities. As with
In order to assist the FHWA's analysis of costs and benefits for the final rule stage, the FHWA requests that commenters provide additional information on the following questions:
(1) Are there implementation costs to project designers and operators not properly represented in the present data?
(2) Are there updating and maintenance costs to any of the impacted entities not properly reflected in the present data?
A detailed discussion of how the FHWA prepared its estimates is provided in this NPRM for interested parties that are not able to review the PRE.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated, through the regulatory assessment, the effects of this action on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and local governments) and determined that this action will not have a significant impact on small entities. Small businesses and small organizations are not subject to this NPRM, which applies to government entities only. The rule accommodates small governmental entities in two significant ways. First, the planning component of the NPRM would apply to MPOs and States. An MPO is the required transportation planning organization for an urbanized area (23 CFR part 1410). An urbanized area, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101, has a population of 50,000 or more. Therefore small government agencies for areas having populations of less than 50,000 would not be affected. Secondly, the self-scaling aspect of the ITS Architecture NPRM would permit the compliance requirements to vary with the magnitude of the ITS requirements of the entity (small ITS projects have correspondingly small compliance documentation requirements). Small entities, primarily transit agencies, coming within the project implementation component of the proposed rule would be accommodated through this self-scaling feature that imposes only limited requirements on small ITS activities. This same feature would also provide accommodation to MPOs that, while larger than the small entity definition of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, have only small ITS planning requirements. Accordingly, the FHWA preliminarily certifies that this proposed action would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. A copy of the analysis on the small entity impact is provided in the docket file.
This rule would not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1531
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this document directly preempts any State law or regulation.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway planning and construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
This proposed action would meet applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not economically significant and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed action does not contain information collection requirements for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321), and has preliminarily determined that this proposed action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment.
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this proposed action with the Unified Agenda.
Design standards, Grant programs-transportation, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs and symbols, Traffic regulations.
Design standards, Grant programs-transportation, Highways and roads, Intelligent transportation systems.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend Chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
1. Revise the authority citation for part 655 to read as follows:
23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 105, 109, 114, 135, 217, 315, and 402; and 49 CFR 1.48.
2. Remove subpart D of part 655, consisting of §§ 655.401, 655.403, 655.407, 655.409, 655.411.
3. Add a new subchapter K, consisting of part 940, to read as follows:
23 U.S.C. 101, 109, 315, and 508; sec 5206(e), Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 457 (23 U.S.C. 502 note); and 49 CFR 1.48.
The purpose of this regulation is to provide policies and procedures relating to the Federal-aid requirements for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) projects funded through the highway trust fund.
The ITS projects shall conform to the National ITS Architecture and standards in accordance with the regulations contained in 23 CFR part 1410. Conformance with the National ITS Architecture is interpreted to mean the use of the National ITS Architecture in developing a local implementation of the National ITS Architecture, referred to as an ITS regional architecture, and the subsequent adherence of all ITS projects to that ITS regional architecture. Development of the ITS regional architecture begins with the transportation planning process and the development of an ITS integration strategy for Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning.
All ITS projects that are funded in whole or in part with the highway trust fund are subject to these provisions.
(a) An ITS regional architecture shall be developed for implementing the ITS integration strategy as provided in 23 CFR 1410. 214(a)(3) and 1410.322(b)(11) to guide the development of specific projects and programs. The ITS regional architecture shall conform with the applicable ITS integration strategy. The National ITS Architecture shall be used as a resource in the development of the ITS regional architecture.
(b) The ITS regional architecture may be developed either as an initial project development effort and updated as projects are initiated, or the ITS regional architecture may be developed incrementally as major ITS investments are initiated and updated with subsequent projects. In either case, provision shall be made to include participation from all agencies with which information-sharing is planned as specified in the ITS integration strategy.
(c) The ITS regional architecture shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) A “concept of operations” that addresses the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies, existing or required agreements for operations, and resources required to support the project, in order to implement the ITS integration strategy;
(2) A “conceptual design” sufficient to support subsequent project design regarding the following:
(i) System functional requirements;
(ii) Interface requirements and information exchanges with planned and existing systems and subsystems (for example, subsystems and architecture flows as defined in the National ITS Architecture);
(iii) Identification of key standards supporting regional and national interoperability, including uniformity and compatibility of equipment, practices and procedures to deliver ITS services; and
(iv) A prioritization of phases or steps required in implementation.
(d) The ITS regional architecture may be developed either as an initial project development effort and updated as projects are initiated, or the ITS regional architecture may be developed incrementally as major ITS investment s are initiated and updated with subsequent projects. If the ITS regional architecture is developed incrementally, the ITS projects meeting the criteria specified in 23 CFR 1410.322(b)(11) shall have an ITS architecture at the project level in order to advance to design or preliminary engineering. The ITS architectures developed for specific individual projects or initiatives that meet these criteria shall be coordinated with each other to form an ITS regional architecture.
(a) All ITS projects shall be based on a systems engineering analysis. The National ITS Architecture is a resource that should be used in the development of ITS projects.
(b) The analysis should be on a scale commensurate with the project scope. The basic elements of the analysis are as follows:
(1) Identification of applicable parts of the ITS regional architecture or ITS integration strategy;
(2) Preliminary analysis, including project objectives, existing systems resources, existing and future personnel and budget resources for operations, management and maintenance of systems;
(3) Analysis of alternative system configurations and technology options;
(4) Analysis of procurement options; and
(5) Identification of applicable standards and testing procedures, particularly those that support national interoperability.
(a) The project specifications shall ensure that the project accommodates the sharing of electronic information and provides for the functionality and operation (both at the time of project implementation and in the future) between the agencies and jurisdictions as indicated in the ITS integration strategy and/or the ITS regional architecture.
(b) All ITS projects funded with highway trust funds shall use applicable ITS standards that have been officially adopted by the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT).
(c) The ITS standards that are pertinent to the project should be used as they become available, prior to adoption by the US DOT.
(d) All ITS projects funded with highway trust funds shall conduct the applicable interoperability tests that have been officially adopted by the US DOT.
(e) Interoperability tests that are pertinent to the project should be used as they become available, prior to adoption by the US DOT.
(a) Prior to authorization of highway trust funds for construction or implementation, there shall be a demonstrated linkage to the ITS regional architecture or to the ITS integration strategy, and a commitment to the operations, management and maintenance of the overall system.
(b) Documentation of compliance with the provisions of §§ 940.11 and 940.13 shall be developed by project sponsors. The documentation shall include identification of the portions of the ITS regional architecture and/or ITS integration strategy which are implemented through the project, and the identification of applicable ITS standards and/or interoperability tests that were considered or are specified in the project. Documentation of the rationale and interagency coordination strategies that were carried out to agree upon certain changes shall be provided in the event that any changes are made in the implementation of projects contrary to the ITS regional architecture and/or the ITS integration strategy. In addition, the ITS regional architecture and/or ITS integration strategy shall be updated to reflect the changes.
(c) ITS projects shall be monitored for compliance with this part under normal Federal-aid project oversight procedures.
(d) Prior to (
(e) In order to ensure that each project identified in 23 CFR 1410.322(b)(11) is coordinated with the evolving regional architecture provided in § 940.9(b), these projects shall be evaluated for institutional and technical integration with transportation systems and services within the region. Based upon this evaluation of the project(s), highway trust fund recipients shall immediately take the appropriate actions to ensure that the project(s) perform the following functions:
(1) Engages a wide range of stakeholders;
(2) Enables the appropriate electronic information sharing between stakeholders;
(3) Facilitates future ITS expansion; and
(4) Uses the applicable ITS standards provided in § 940.13(b).
(f) All ITS projects that advance to design or preliminary engineering must conform with the system engineering and conformity requirements provided in §§ 940.11 on or before (
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces a Request for Comment on the proposed FTA National ITS Architecture Consistency Policy for project development, which is defined in this document and in the Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM published separately in today's
Comments shall be submitted by August 23, 2000.
All signed, written comments must refer to the docket number appearing at the top of this document and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments received will be available for examination at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.
For Technical Information: Ron Boenau, Chief, Advanced Public Transportation Systems Division (TRI-11), at (202) 366-0195 or Brian Cronin, Advanced Public Transportation Systems Division (TRI-11), at (202) 366-8841.
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
A
Section 5206(e) of TEA-21 requires that the Secretary of the DOT must
“Ensure that intelligent transportation system projects carried out using funds made available from the Highway Trust Fund, * * * conform to the national architecture, applicable standards or provisional standards, and protocols developed under subsection(a).”
On October 2, 1998, the DOT issued Interim Guidance on Conformity with the National ITS Architecture and Standards. The Interim Guidance reflects input received from Federal, State, local, and private sector transportation stakeholders in conjunction with the national transportation association forums and 10 outreach sessions held across the Nation in the spring of 1998. The intent of the Interim Guidance is to:
• Foster integration.
• Encourage the incorporation of ITS into the transportation planning process, and
• Focus on near-term ITS projects with the greatest potential for affecting regional integration.
The Interim Guidance is available on the DOT website at
The objectives for the FTA's National ITS Architecture Policy for project development are to:
• Provide requirements for ITS project development for projects implemented wholly or partially with highway trust funds.
• Achieve system integration (
• Engage stakeholders (state DOT's, transit agencies, public safety agencies, other transportation operating agencies).
• Enable electronic information and data sharing among stakeholders.
• Facilitate future expansion capability of the transportation infrastructure.
• Foster interoperability.
• Save design time through use of the National ITS Architecture.
FTA has developed this proposed policy to meet the TEA-21 requirement contained in Section 5206(e) and the DOT/FTA goal to encourage effective deployment of ITS projects. Additionally, DOT and FTA encourage the coordination of local ITS strategies and projects to help meet national and local goals for mobility, accessibility, safety, security, economic growth and trade, and environment.
The National ITS Architecture documents were developed by the US DOT, and are updated on an as-needed basis. The latest addition to the National ITS Architecture is the Archive Data User Service, which provides the ability to store and process data over an extended period of time. FTA is pursuing the addition of a Rail ITS user service within the National ITS Architecture. New versions of the documents, when they are issued, will be available from the US DOT in hard copy and electronic format on the DOT website at
FTA and FHWA have developed an approach for coordinating this policy with requirements for statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes. The proposed approach, contained in the Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning NPRM (published elsewhere in today's
The approach in the NPRM includes the provision that states and MPOs are to develop a locally defined ITS Integration Strategy to guide future investment decisions and foster integration and interoperability [See the following sections: §§ 1410.104, 1410.322(b)(11), 1410.214 (a)(3), and 1410.216(c)(8)]. Included in development of the strategy, at a minimum, are highway, transit, and public safety agencies, appropriate federal lands agencies, state motor carrier agencies as appropriate, and other operating agencies necessary to fully address ITS integration. The Integration Strategy shall assess existing and future ITS systems, functions and electronic information sharing expectations. Unique regional ITS initiatives shall be identified in the Integration Strategy. Under the section for planning agreements [See Section 1410.310(i)], the NPRM also calls for an agreement among the MPO, the state DOT, the transit operator, and other agencies identified in the Integration Strategy. This agreement shall address policy and operational issues, including at a minimum ITS project interoperability, utilization of ITS related standards, and the routine operation of the projects identified in the ITS Integration Strategy.
The proposed requirements contained in this section have been developed to facilitate the interoperability of projects funded through the highway trust fund (including the mass transit account) with other projects included in the ITS Integration Strategy. FTA proposes the development of an ITS Regional Architecture for implementing the ITS Integration Strategy per 49 CFR 1410.322(b)(11) and 1410. 214(a)(3) to guide the development of specific projects and programs. The FTA proposes to require that the ITS Regional Architecture conform with the applicable ITS Integration Strategy. This proposal suggests that the National ITS Architecture shall be used as a resource in the development of the ITS Regional Architecture.
The ITS Regional Architecture may be developed either as an initial project development effort and updated as projects are initiated, or the ITS Regional Architecture may be developed incrementally as major ITS investments are initiated and updated with subsequent projects.
Major ITS investments include the following three project categories:
• Unique regional ITS initiatives (a program of related projects) that are multi-jurisdictional and/or multi-modal,
• ITS projects that affect regional integration of ITS systems, and
• Projects which directly support national interoperability.
In either case, it is proposed that provision should be made to include participation from all agencies with which information-sharing is planned as specified in the ITS Integration Strategy.
This proposal recommends that the ITS Regional Architecture include, at a minimum and scalable to the size of the region, the following:
A. A concept of operations addressing: The roles and responsibilities of participating agencies and existing or required agreements for operations and resources required to support the project;
B. A conceptual design sufficient to support subsequent project design regarding system functional requirements; interface requirements and information exchanges with planned and existing systems and subsystems (for example, subsystems and architecture flows as defined in the National ITS Architecture); identification of key standards supporting national interoperability, including uniformity and compatibility of equipment, practices, and procedures to deliver ITS services; and, it must establish a priority of phases or steps required for implementation.
ITS projects that are considered to be major ITS investments are proposed to have an ITS project architecture developed that includes a concept of operations and conceptual design as defined above. The ITS project architecture could then serve as the initial ITS Regional Architecture, or if an ITS Regional Architecture exists, could be used to update the existing ITS Regional Architecture.
This proposal recommends that all projects funded through the highway trust fund (including the mass transit account) shall be consistent with the ITS Integration Strategy, the inter-
As proposed, the project specifications will be required to ensure that the project accommodates the sharing of electronic information and provides for the functionality and operation (both at the time of project implementation and in the future) between the agencies and jurisdictions as indicated in the ITS Integration Strategy and/or the ITS Regional Architecture.
This Notice proposes to require documentation of proposed ITS requirements be included in project documents. Documentation will also be required to include identification of the portions of the ITS Regional Architecture and/or ITS Integration Strategy, which are implemented through the project, and the identification of applicable ITS standards and/or interoperability tests that were considered or specified in the project. Any changes made in project design that impact the ITS Integration Strategy or ITS Regional Architecture are proposed to require to be documented. This Notice proposes that documentation of the rationale and interagency coordination strategies that were carried out to agree upon certain changes will be required to be provided in the event that any changes are made in the implementation of projects contrary to the ITS Integration Strategy or ITS Regional Architecture. In addition, this Notice proposes that the ITS Regional Architecture and/or ITS Integration Strategy be required to be updated to reflect the changes.
This proposal suggests the phasing to be as follows:
• Prior to (insert the date two years after date of the final policy publication in the
• All ITS projects that involve preliminary engineering, including system engineering, and which advance to final design must conform to the requirements for ITS Projects on or before (insert effective date of final policy).
• In the event that an applicable ITS Integration Strategy or ITS Regional Architecture does not exist, the applicable portions of the National ITS Architecture will be required to be identified and used as the basis for analysis.
• All National ITS Architecture Consistency Policy requirements will be required to apply on (insert date two years after effective date of final policy).
This Notice proposes to require grantees to self-certify that they have met the National ITS Architecture consistency requirements. Existing FTA Oversight procedures will be used to verify self-certifications. FTA has allocated FTA Oversight funds from the fiscal year 1999 oversight budget to be used to provide the initial oversight and technical assistance to grantees regarding this policy.
FTA will develop appropriate guidance materials regarding the National ITS Architecture consistency requirements upon completion of the Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning NPRM process and after the comment period regarding this policy.
In order to facilitate focused comments, FTA is asking the following questions regarding the proposed National ITS Architecture Consistency Policy for Project Development.
1. Do reviewers understand the definition of a major ITS investment as defined in Section IV, “ITS Regional Architecture,” or is more clarification needed, and if so please explain?
2. Do reviewers understand the definition of an ITS project, or is more clarification needed, and if so please explain?
3. Do reviewers understand the difference between a major ITS investment, and an ITS project, or is more clarification needed, and if so please explain?
4. Are the requirements for development of a Regional Architecture clear? If not, what is not clear about the requirement?
5. What additional guidance, if any, is required to explain how to implement this proposed policy?
6. The proposed rule allows regions to develop a Regional Architecture as a separate activity, or incrementally as major ITS investments are developed within a region. Do reviewers anticipate particular difficulties with implementing and documenting either approach?
7. Do reviewers understand the relationships between the Integration Strategy, the ITS Regional Architecture, and the ITS Project Architecture?
8. What additional guidance, if any, is required regarding phasing of this rule?
9. Are the oversight and documentation requirements clear? If not, what is not clear about the requirements?
Department of Education.
Notice of the annual updates to the income contingent repayment (ICR) plan formula.
The Secretary announces the annual updates to the ICR Plan formula for 2000. Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program, borrowers may choose to repay their student loans under the ICR plan, which bases the repayment amount on the borrower's income, family size, loan amount, and interest rate. Each year, the formula for calculating a borrower's payment is adjusted to reflect changes due to inflation. This notice contains the required updates based on inflation, which are examples of how the calculation of the monthly ICR amount is performed, the income percentage factors, the constant multiplier chart, and charts showing sample repayment amounts. These updates are effective from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001.
Don Watson, U.S. Department of Education, Room 3045, ROB-3, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-5400. Telephone: (202) 708-8242. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (
Direct Loan Program borrowers may choose to repay their Direct Loans under the ICR Plan. The attachment to this Notice provides updates to four sources of information: examples of how the calculation of the monthly ICR amount is performed, the income percentage factors, the constant multiplier chart, and charts showing sample repayment amounts.
We have updated the income percentage factors to reflect changes based on inflation. We have revised the income percentage factor table by changing the dollar amounts of the incomes shown by a percentage equal to the estimated percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers from December 1999 to December 2000. Further, we provide examples of monthly repayment amount calculations and two charts that show sample repayment amounts for single, and married or head of household borrowers at various income and debt levels based on the updated income percentage factors.
The updated income percentage factors, at any given income, may cause a borrower's payments to be slightly lower than they were in prior years. This updated amount more accurately reflects the impact of inflation on a borrower's current ability to repay.
You may review this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
The official version of this document is the document published in the
This example assumes you are a single borrower with $15,000 in Direct Loans, the interest rate being charged is 8.25 percent, and you have an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $30,713.
In this example, you are married. You and your spouse have a combined AGI of $58,040 and are repaying your loans jointly under the ICR plan. You have no children. You have a Direct Loan balance of $10,000, and your spouse has a Direct Loan balance of $15,000. Your interest rate is 8.25 percent.
The result is the income percentage factor that will be used to calculate the monthly repayment amount under the ICR Plan.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Interpretative rule.
This interpretative rule clarifies the construction by EPA of the applicability of sections 112(g) and 112(j) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and of the regulations implementing these provisions for stationary combustion turbines in Subpart B—Requirements for Control Technology Determinations for Major Sources in Accordance With Clean Air Act Sections 112(g) and 112(j).
Specifically, EPA has determined that case-by-case maximum achievable control technology (MACT) determinations under subpart B must be made for all new or reconstructed major source stationary combustion turbines, regardless of whether they are part of a combined cycle system. Waste heat recovery units, including duct burners, which are part of a combined cycle system are considered to be steam generating units. New or reconstructed waste heat recovery units would not be subject to case-by-case MACT determinations under subpart B if they are electric utility steam generating units.
Elsewhere in today's
June 26, 2000.
For further information, contact Sims Roy, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5263, facsimile: (919) 541-5450, electronic mail address:
The EPA has decided to issue this interpretative rule to resolve an ambiguity in the construction of the exclusion for electric utility steam generating units set forth in 40 CFR 63.40(c). That provision states, “The requirements of [40 CFR part 63, subpart B] do not apply to electric utility steam generating units unless and until such time as these units are added to the source category list pursuant to section 112(c)(5) of the Act.” This applicability exclusion was intended to limit the need for case-by-case MACT determinations for new or reconstructed sources under CAA section 112(g) and 40 CFR 63.40-63.44, but the same exclusion would also generally apply to case-by-case MACT determinations for new and existing sources pursuant to CAA section 112(j).
The term “electric utility steam generating unit” is defined in CAA section 112(a)(8) and at 40 CFR 63.41, as follows:
The term “electric utility steam generating unit” means any fossil fuel fired combustion unit of more than 25 megawatts that serves a generator that produces electricity for sale. A unit that co-generates steam and electricity and supplies more than one-third of its potential electric output capacity and more than 25 megawatts electric output to any utility power distribution system for sale shall be considered an electric utility steam generating unit.
The EPA explained its reasoning for the electric utility steam generating unit exclusion in the preamble to the final rule implementing CAA section 112(g) for new and reconstructed major sources (61 FR 68387, December 27, 1996). We noted that CAA section 112(n)(1) required us to perform a study of the hazards to public health associated with hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from electric utility steam generating units. After completing the required study and considering the results, we are authorized to regulate such units under CAA section 112 if we determine such regulation is appropriate and necessary. We have not at this time made a determination whether such regulation is appropriate and necessary, but we are required by court order to make a determination by December 15, 2000. We excluded electric utility steam generating units from case-by-case MACT determinations under section 112(g) because we concluded that such determinations should only be made for sources which would otherwise be subject to section 112 MACT standards.
Stationary combustion turbines were included on the list of source categories issued pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1), and we are, therefore, required to issue a MACT standard applicable to this category pursuant to CAA section 112(d). Proposal of the MACT standard for this source category is anticipated in late 2000, with promulgation in early 2002.
Stationary combustion turbines may be used to generate electricity. These stationary combustion turbines are sometimes combined with waste heat recovery units which generate steam by extracting heat from the exhaust gases (
On the one hand, EPA believes that the most reasonable construction of the statutory definition of electric utility steam generating units would not include any stationary combustion turbine, regardless of whether it is used by an electric utility to generate electricity, and regardless of whether it is attached to a waste heat recovery unit which generates steam. Accordingly, we are developing a MACT standard to regulate emissions from all stationary combustion turbines pursuant to CAA section 112(d).
On the other hand, we also recognize that the first sentence of the statutory definition creates ambiguity concerning whether an electric utility unit must even generate steam to be included. This ambiguity has been compounded by the language in the preamble to the final section 112(g) rule, which predicates the exclusion for electric utilities based on the study performed pursuant to CAA section 112(n)(1). That study did, in fact, include some very limited consideration of stationary combustion turbines. In light of these ambiguities, different permitting authorities have reached differing conclusions concerning whether a case-by-case MACT determination under section 112(g) is required for new or reconstructed major source stationary combustion turbines. At various times, offices within EPA have also given differing interpretations concerning whether a case-by-case MACT determination is required for such facilities.
This interpretative rule is intended to clearly resolve the ambiguity in the construction of 40 CFR 63.40(c) as applied to stationary combustion turbines. This interpretative rule will become legally effective and binding on June 26, 2000. After that date, all EPA offices and permitting authorities must adhere to this interpretative rule. Those EPA offices and permitting authorities who become aware of this interpretative rule, or the construction of the statute set forth herein, prior to the effective
The EPA construes the term “electric utility steam generating unit,” as defined by CAA section 112(a)(8) and 40 CFR 63.41, to exclude all stationary combustion turbines, regardless of whether or not such turbines are utilized to generate electricity or utilized by an electric utility, and regardless of whether or not such turbines are utilized in conjunction with waste heat recovery units (
The phrase “steam generating unit” in the term “electric utility steam generating unit” is critical to interpreting which types of combustion units are covered by this definition and which types are not. The definition clearly covers a conventional fossil fuel fired steam generating unit (
However, we do not believe this term was intended to cover a stationary combustion turbine which extracts shaft power from the combustion of fuel and spins an electric generator to generate electricity. Such a combustion turbine does not extract heat to generate steam. In fact, there is no steam generated at all in a combustion turbine. Hence, we conclude that the term “electric utility steam generating unit” does not include any stationary combustion turbine, and that such turbines must be regulated under a section 112(d) MACT standard or a section 112(j) determination. Moreover, a case-by-case MACT determination under section 112(g) is required for any new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine which is a major source.
This reasoning can be further applied to combined cycle systems. For purposes of this discussion, a combined cycle system is a combination of a stationary combustion turbine and a waste heat recovery unit.
In a combined cycle system, a combustion turbine extracts shaft power from the combustion of fuel and spins an electric generator to generate electricity. The hot exhaust gases from the combustion turbine are then routed to a separate “waste heat recovery unit.” The waste heat recovery unit extracts heat from the gases and generates steam for use in a steam turbine, which in turn provides shaft power to spin an electric generator and generate electricity.
The combustion turbine in a combined cycle system does not generate steam. It is not a “steam generating unit” and, therefore, is not an “electric utility steam generating unit.”
However, we also conclude that, because the waste heat recovery unit in a combined cycle system does generate steam, it is a steam generating unit. Whether a waste heat recovery unit in a new or reconstructed combined cycle system is subject to a case-by-case MACT is a moot point in many cases because the waste heat recovery unit is not an emission source. The emissions from the combustion turbine pass through the waste heat recovery unit, but the waste heat recovery unit is not a source of additional emissions.
There is another type of combined cycle system, however, in which the waste heat recovery unit does contribute additional emissions. In these types of combined cycle systems, fuel is burned in the duct, through the use of “duct burners,” just before the gases enter the waste heat recovery unit.
These duct burners are analogous to the burners in steam generating units (
Duct burners in combined cycle systems normally burn natural gas. Although it is unlikely that sufficient natural gas would be burned in a duct burner in a combined cycle system to result in emissions that would themselves exceed the major source threshold, a combined cycle system may have aggregate emissions which exceed the major source threshold. Therefore, in each instance where a stationary combustion turbine in a combined cycle system must meet MACT requirements because it is a major source of HAP, an associated duct burner will also be subject to MACT requirements unless it is found to be an electric utility steam generating unit. It is also possible that there could be instances where emissions from a duct burner in a waste heat recovery unit which is not an electric utility steam generating unit could cause the total emissions from a combined cycle system to exceed the major source threshold.
If the waste heat recovery unit in a combined cycle system operates with duct burners, and more than one-third of the potential electrical output capacity of the duct burners and more than 25 megawatts of the electrical output provided by the duct burners are provided to any utility power distribution system for sale, then the waste heat recovery unit is an electric utility steam generating unit and is not subject to case-by-case MACT determinations unless and until such units are added to the source category list pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5). However, if the waste heat recovery unit in a combined cycle system operates with duct burners and less than one-third of the potential electrical output capacity of the duct burners or less than 25 megawatts of the electrical output provided by the duct burners are provided to any utility power distribution system for sale, then the waste heat recovery unit must also meet MACT requirements if the aggregate HAP emissions from the combined cycle system exceed the major source threshold.
As mentioned above, EPA is developing MACT standards for stationary combustion turbines. This effort has resulted in collection of information regarding the performance, as well as the costs, associated with the use of various technologies to reduce emissions of HAP from stationary combustion turbines.
In conjunction with today's interpretative rule, EPA is making available two memoranda, the first entitled, “Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Emission Control Technology for New Stationary Combustion Turbines,” and the second entitled, “Oxidation Catalyst Costs for New Stationary Combustion Turbines.” These two memoranda compile and summarize information collected by EPA and may be of assistance in making any required case-by-case MACT determinations. These memoranda may be obtained by contacting EPA as shown under
An error by EPA led to publication of a preliminary draft of the interpretative rule on April 21, 2000 at 65 FR 36321.
As mentioned above, this interpretative rule simply resolves current ambiguity concerning the applicability of CAA section 112 to new or reconstructed major source stationary combustion turbines. It is not intended to subject these entities to any new or additional regulatory requirements.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51736, October 4, 1993), this interpretative rule is not a “significant regulatory action” and is, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that interpretative rules are not subject to notice-and-comment requirements. Interpretative rules which do not involve the internal revenue laws of the United States are not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This interpretative rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This interpretative rule will not have significant direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This interpretative rule is also not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant. This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This interpretative rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In issuing this interpretative rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the interpretative rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This interpretative rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air emissions control, Hazardous air pollutants, Combustion turbines.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of interpretative rule.
The EPA is withdrawing the interpretative rule published in the
An administrative error led to publication of a preliminary draft of the interpretative rule, rather than the final interpretative rule EPA intended to publish. Concurrent with this withdrawal of the incorrect version of the interpretative rule published on April 21, 2000, EPA is publishing elsewhere in today's
On May 25, 2000, EPA hereby withdraws the interpretative rule published at 65 FR 21363. The corrected interpretative rule will become legally effective on June 26, 2000.
For further information, contact Sims Roy, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5263, facsimile: (919) 541-5450, electronic mail address:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS, upon application from BP Exploration (Alaska), 900 East Benson Boulevard, Anchorage, AK 99519 (BPXA) issues regulations to govern the unintentional take of a small number of marine mammals incidental to construction and operation of offshore oil and gas facilities at the Northstar development in the Beaufort Sea in state and Federal waters. Issuance of regulations governing unintentional incidental takes in connection with particular activities is required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) when the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), after notice and opportunity for comment, finds, as here, that such takes will have a negligible impact on the species and stocks of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of them for subsistence uses. These regulations do not authorize BPXA's activity as such authorization is not within the jurisdiction of the Secretary. Rather, these regulations authorize the unintentional incidental take of marine mammals in connection with such activities and prescribe methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses.
Effective May 25, 2000, until May 25, 2005.
A copy of the updated application, Technical Monitoring Plan, Biological Opinion, Environmental Assessment (EA), and a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here (see
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information requirement contained in this rule should be sent to the Chief, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: NOAA Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503.
Kenneth R. Hollingshead (301) 713-2055, Brad Smith, (907) 271-5006.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permission may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if the Secretary finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of affected marine mammals, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if regulations are prescribed setting forth the permissible methods of taking and the requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
On November 30, 1998, NMFS received an application for Letters of Authorization (LOAs) granting an incidental, small take exemption under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA from BPXA to take marine mammals incidental to construction and operation of offshore oil and gas facilities at the Northstar and Liberty developments in the Beaufort Sea in state and Federal waters. On March 1, 1999 (64 FR 9965), NMFS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on BPXA's application and invited interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning the application, and the structure and content of regulations if the application is accepted. During the 30-day comment period on that notice, comments were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), Greenpeace Alaska (Greenpeace), the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), the North Slope Borough (NSB), and the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope. Those comments were addressed in the preamble to the proposed rule which was published on October 22, 1999 (64 FR 57010).
Because of delays in construction during 1999, and in issuing a proposed rule on this matter, on October 1, 1999, BPXA updated their application to NMFS. Among other things, the revised application removed from this rulemaking a request for a take of marine mammals incidental to construction and operation at Liberty. The revised application is available upon request (see
BPXA proposes to produce oil from the Northstar Unit offshore oil development. This development will be the first in the Beaufort Sea that uses a subsea pipeline to transport oil to shore and then into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The Northstar Unit is located on Seal Island between 2 and 8 miles (mi)(3.2 and 12.9 kilometers (km)) offshore from Pt. Storkersen, AK. This unit is adjacent to the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex and is approximately 54 mi (87 km) northeast of Nuiqsut, a Native Alaskan community.
Construction began in December 1999 with the construction of ice roads. Both island construction and offshore pipeline installation is scheduled to occur in 2000. Construction activity includes the construction of several ice roads, one from West Dock and Pt. McIntyre to the Northstar gravel mine, one from the Kuparuk River delta mine site to Seal Island, and one along the pipeline route to Seal Island. The gravel-haul road will have a parallel alternate road to transport service equipment, construction materials and alternate gravel hauling when maintenance or repair of the main ice road is required. In addition to these main ice roads it is expected that three to four access roads will be cleared of snow to allow light vehicle traffic between the pipeline construction activities and the gravel-haul ice road. These on-ice access roads will have the snow cleared regularly, with intermittent flooding to maintain safe traffic conditions.
It is estimated that during the winter approximately 16,800 large-volume haul trips between the onshore mine site and a reload area in the vicinity of Egg Island, and 28,500 lighter dump truck trips from Egg Island to Seal Island will be necessary to transport construction
Construction of a gravel island work surface for drilling and oil production facilities, and the construction and installation of two 10-inch (0.25-m) pipelines, one to transport crude oil and one for gas for field injection, will take place during the winter and into the open water season of 2000, while the transport and installation of the drill rig and associated equipment will occur during the summer, ending around September 1, 2000. The two pipelines will be buried together in a single trench. During the summer barges are expected to make approximately 90 to 100 round-trips from Prudhoe Bay or Endicott to support construction.
The operational phase will begin with drilling as early as the fourth quarter of 2000, and will continue for about 2 years. Power will be supplied by diesel generators. This phase of drilling will temporarily cease in mid-2001 to allow installation and start-up of process facilities. Drilling is expected to resume about November 2001. Drilling will continue until 23 development wells (15 production, 7 gas injection) are drilled. After drilling is completed, only production-related site activities will occur. In order to support operations at Northstar, the proposed operations activity includes the annual construction of an ice road from Pt. McIntyre to the shore crossing of the pipeline and along the pipeline route to Seal Island. Ice roads will be used to resupply needed equipment, parts, foodstuffs, and products, and for hauling wastes back to existing facilities. During the summer, barge trips will be required between West Dock or Endicott and the island for resupply.
Year-round helicopter access to Northstar is planned for movement of personnel, foodstuffs and emergency movement of supplies and equipment. Helicopters will fly at an altitude of at least 1,000 ft (305 m), except for takeoffs, landings, and safe-flight operations.
On October 22, 1999 (64 FR 57010), NMFS published a notice of proposed rulemaking on BPXA's application and invited interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning the application and proposed rule. During the 60-day comment period on that notice, comments were received from BPXA, the MMC, Greenpeace, the NSB, and the AEWC. Their comments are addressed here.
While BPXA would be responsible for maintaining the ice-free channel in order to facilitate oil spill response, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit prohibits ice breaking until October 15, meaning that ice-breaking will not occur until after most, if not all of the bowhead migration and subsistence whaling have concluded for the year. Any ice-breaking occurring prior to the end of the bowhead subsistence harvest at Nuiqsut is not considered part of the request by BPXA and, therefore, cannot be authorized for a taking of marine mammals.
An estimate of incidental harassments by aircraft is not necessary because helicopters must remain at a minimum altitude of 1,000 ft (305 m), weather permitting (except when landing or taking off). NMFS understands that other permits require helicopters at Northstar to maintain an altitude of 1,500 ft (457 m). At 1,000-ft altitude and higher, takings of marine mammals are unlikely to occur. At altitudes lower than 1,000 ft (305 m), while seals may make minor behavioral changes to the helicopter noise, these changes are unlikely to alter seal behavior sufficient to constitute a take. Further reducing potential impacts, helicopter traffic will be between shore and Northstar and bowhead and beluga whales are normally found in waters north of Northstar, outside the area of helicopter traffic.
NMFS recognizes however, that helicopter traffic patterns may change in the future when, and if, additional oil development structures are sited. NMFS intends to review the impacts from structure to structure flights when these activities apply for an initial LOA under these regulations. Applicants are encouraged to address this form of taking on marine mammals, especially bowhead whales and the subsistence hunting of this species, when applying for an LOA. Failure to adequately address this issue may result in a delay in processing applications.
The Corps' draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), FEIS, and the comments that were submitted to the Corps on those documents are considered to be part of NMFS' Record of Decision on this matter.
NMFS believes that the Corps' FEIS addresses, to the extent possible, the cumulative impacts of past and future impacts on marine mammals and subsistence whaling (see Chapt. 10 of the FEIS). That document notes that “[T]he potential for future developments to cause or contribute to any deflection of the [bowhead] migration or impact the harvest will depend largely upon the proposed location with respect to the traditional migratory path and traditional harvest areas. Accordingly, proposed future projects will have to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether and how they may cause or contribute to any effects on the bowhead migration or subsistence harvest.”
It should be recognized however, that NMFS has already published and provided for public comment on BPXA's application for the Liberty oil development project (64 FR 9965, March 1, 1999). Because of a delay in timing for the start of the Liberty project due to NEPA, NMFS expects that BPXA will submit a revised application for Liberty. Because NMFS has already provided public notice on BPXA's application for a small take for the Liberty project, NMFS will not reannounce receipt of the application, but will proceed immediately to the proposed rule stage. As a result, and for this application only, NMFS expects to provide an extended public comment period of 90 days to allow the public adequate time for review both the application and the proposed rule, in lieu of providing another review limited to BPXA's Liberty application.
In this action however, several issues remain unresolved, the principal ones being the implementation of effective marine mammal mitigation and monitoring during oil production, the peer review of monitoring plans, and the submission of annual POCs. Therefore, NMFS has determined that LOA renewals under this rulemaking will have a requirement for a 30-day public review period, at least in the early years of renewal. However, in order to expedite the LOA renewal process, NMFS will open the review
Since construction work at Northstar will continue through at least November, 2000, issuance of an LOA limited only to construction has been accepted by NMFS. In the meantime, discussion on appropriate mitigation and monitoring during production can continue. However, to ensure that takings resulting from uncompleted construction work late in 2000 or early 2001, if any, are covered, NMFS has made the LOA valid for a full 12 months, but only for construction.
Also, NMFS does not consider it necessary to make a negligible impact determination on the worst case scenario. NMFS believes that using the worst case estimate does not provide a realistic estimate of harassment take levels. NMFS suggests that reviewers note the detailed explanation in the application on how BPXA estimated take levels. The best scientific data indicates that, between 1979 and 1997, a period of 18 years of data collection, bowheads came within 10 km (6.2 mi) of the site of the future Northstar Unit only during 1997 (BPXA, 1999). This being the case, there is simply no need to presume that this migratory deflection would occur during each of the next 5 years. However, NMFS has determined that, because this close-approach did occur in a recent year, a more reliable estimate of take can be made by presuming that this take level could occur again once or twice within the next 5 year period. Therefore, NMFS has determined that an average annual take by harassment, due to noise from construction and operation at Northstar, as calculated by BPXA (i.e., 173 (maximum 1,533) per year) would result in a maximum of 717 bowheads annually or approximately 9 percent of the revised 1993 estimated population size of 8,200 (95 percent CI, 7,200-9,400) (Hill and DeMaster, 1999; IWC, 1996). NMFS notes that this harassment will be limited to a deflection in migration and would be considered a taking by Level B harassment. Such a taking would result in only small numbers being taken and having no more than a negligible impact (both as defined in § 216.103) on bowhead whales.
Finally, NMFS disagrees with the MMC that the available data are insufficient to be confident that both the population level effects (and the impacts on Native subsistence hunting) would be negligible. The take levels under discussion here are limited to harassment due to noise disturbance by construction and later production at the Northstar Unit. The level of noise produced at Northstar is expected to be substantially less than that produced during seismic surveys, and, unlike seismic, Northstar is stationary and located well inshore of the normal migratory path of the bowhead whale. In addition, the bowhead whale population has increased from approximately 4,400 (CV 3,500 to 5,300) (Zeh
However, of more concern to NMFS is the impact, not by Northstar alone, but the cumulative impact in the future by several offshore oil developments and seismic activity on the subsistence lifestyle of the North Slope residents. This is discussed in more detail later in this document.
While NMFS recognizes that there is some potential that bowheads (and other marine mammal species) may be harassed, injured or killed due to an oil spill from Northstar, NMFS determined previously, under section 7 of the ESA, that oil and gas development at Northstar would not jeopardize the continued existence of the bowhead whale.
Additionally, spilled oil would need to occur at a time and/or location where it could intercept bowhead whales or other marine mammal species. The FEIS describes the fate and consequences of having a major oil spill during different seasons of the year. NMFS also considers this information to be the best scientific information available. As a result, NMFS believes that, because the likelihood of a major oil spill occurring and impacting marine mammals is low for the period of these regulations, it is both impractical and speculative to calculate take levels for major oil spills. The low probability of a major oil spill impacting marine mammals also allows NMFS to make a determination that the taking would have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals in accordance with Congressional direction mentioned previously.
However, NMFS recognizes that in the unlikely event that a major oil spill did occur, the impact has some potential to be more than negligible. As a result, NMFS has determined that, in the event a major oil spill occurs, NMFS will need to reassess immediately its determination in this document that the taking of marine mammals by oil and gas development activities in the Beaufort Sea is having no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals. If, because the takings are projected to exceed the levels used in this document to make a negligible impact finding, NMFS can no longer make a negligible impact determination, NMFS will immediately suspend the LOA issued for the oil development project causing the impact. Because the LOA suspension falls under the emergency determination for LOA suspension under these regulations, NMFS will not provide a 30-day public review period prior to suspension. However, NMFS believes the possibility of this situation occurring is remote.
In the past, NMFS has requested, without success, information regarding the locations where successful bowhead whale takes occur in the Beaufort Sea. Considering that whalers are provided with GPS receivers, this information should be available. This information could provide scientists with data to make assessments on the impacts from oil and gas production activities on Beaufort Sea subsistence whaling. In the interim, NMFS uses the more general information provided by the applicant.
Based on the information to date, however, NMFS has determined that the potential for a major oil spill to occur, and for that oil to intercept bowhead whales in the migratory corridor, which in turn, could affect the subsistence harvest of all 10 villages, is unlikely.
It should be recognized that mitigation (using trained dogs) conducted this year during primary ice road construction was implemented because BPXA did not have an authorization for harassment under the MMPA, and therefore needed to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, harassing ringed seals. At a workshop later this year, NMFS will assess the value and practicality of using trained dogs as a mitigation measure to locate seal structures on the ice and then halting activity around the structure until either the animal voluntarily vacates the structure or biological observers determine that the structure is unoccupied. Alternatively, NMFS may determine that it is preferable for the ringed seals to be discouraged, by incidental construction noise, from converting breathing holes into seal structures where pups may later be born, and potentially injured or killed at some later time.
Section 101(a)(5)(A)(ii)(I) of the MMPA provides for regulations setting for the permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stock and its habitat. As ringed seals construct several breathing holes and lairs within its territory, they do not rely on a single structure during the year. Ice roads constructed early in the year will result in some minor harassment as ringed seals abandon certain breathing holes, if the noise is disturbing to them. NMFS believes this may be preferable to avoiding all harassment of ringed seals during ice road construction (how that would be accomplished has not been identified) and then having the newborn pup, who may be more sensitive to noise than an adult, abandon a birthing lair prior weaning, and having that pup succumb to the effects.
As an extra precaution, work is required to cease whenever a marine mammal enters its respective safety zone as noted by an observer. However, while certain work must not start-up until the observer can ensure that the safety zones are free of marine mammals, once that work begins it need not cease simply because weather precludes adequate observation during inclement weather or nighttime. NMFS presumes that anthropogenic noise in the area around Northstar will discourage marine mammal presence if the noise is bothersome to the animals.
A detailed description of monitoring during Northstar operations was not submitted at the time because that monitoring program would not begin until oil drilling operations began, approximately November 2000. BPXA will submit a monitoring plan for operations in sufficient time for that plan to be reviewed by peers and the general public. NMFS anticipates public review on the monitoring plan during the first year of operations will be conducted during the public comment period on an application for LOA renewal, which will be contingent on submission of an adequate monitoring plan. In the interim, BPXA will continue monitoring impacts as described in the August 20, 1999, Technical Monitoring Plan. As stated in BPXA's application, monitoring during operations will require evaluation based on the results of monitoring during construction and any other information that becomes available in the interim. NMFS intends to continue past practice and have annual submissions of proposed monitoring plans and to have those plans peer reviewed prior to implementation.
It should be understood that independent peer review in this context means a review by other than NMFS, the oil industry and its contractors, and the AEWC/NSB. However, independent peer review is not required for authorizations issued under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. While peer review of monitoring plans has been incorporated into these regulations in accordance with findings made at a workshop held in Seattle in 1994 with the AEWC, the oil and gas industry and others, independent peer review is at the discretion of NMFS. On April 9, 1999 (64 FR 17347), NMFS requested nominations for the voluntary participation in the peer review process. Due to a lack of interest expressed by the public in response to this notice, NMFS has decided to reserve use of an independent peer review to matters of significant dispute between the AEWC, NMFS, and/or the Holder of an LOA. In general, specific requirements for independent peer review will be
Following Swartz and Hofman (1991), NMFS has determined that the Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) study of ringed seal distribution meets the monitoring requirements for assessing impacts on ringed seals during wintertime construction and operation. This does not mean however, that additional or alternative ringed seal monitoring will not be required in future years under an LOA. Such monitoring may be imposed as a result of future peer review workshops.
As proposed previously, an interim report was due 180 days prior to expiration of an LOA. If an LOA expires early in the year, as is expected with the Northstar LOA, then the report would be due 6 months prior to that date, or in late summer of the previous year. Because of the timing, this report obviously could not include an assessment of the activity's impact on bowhead whales and the subsistence harvest that year since the fall migration would only be starting at that time. Therefore, this report would need to contain an assessment of the previous year's impact on bowhead whales, requiring the use of dated information, and putting the data out of synchrony with the actual taking of marine mammals during that LOA period of validity. However, this is realistic considering that it takes 6-7 months to incorporate MMS aerial survey data on bowheads into an analysis of impacts from an oil and gas exploration or development activity.
As a result, because of the importance of having a peer review of both monitoring plans and the results from previous monitoring, NMFS has amended the regulations and is requiring holders of LOAs to provide two interim reports, the first due 90 days after the end of the on-ice season (approximately September 15
Finally, NMFS will require a final comprehensive report on all marine mammal monitoring and research conducted by the holder of its LOAs during the period of these regulations
In addition, recognizing the period of time when NSB residents are not available to meet (discussed previously in this document) and because the NSB, NMFS, and others are already sponsoring and/or participating in three meetings annually on this issue, one for open water monitoring, a second for winter (on-ice) monitoring, and a third to address short- and long-term monitoring for effects from potential oil spills on marine mammals, a fourth meeting limited to discussion on the results of previous year's monitoring is simply not practical at this time.
Additional conservation recommendations to reduce impacts on the endangered bowhead whale are contained in these regulations, the BPXA LOA, and the Incidental Take Statement issued to the Corps under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Description of Habitat and Marine Mammal Affected by the Activity
The DEIS and FEIS prepared for the Northstar development (Corps, 1998, 1999) contains a detailed description of the Beaufort Sea ecosystem and its associated marine mammals. Those documents are part of the record of decision of this rulemaking. A copy of the FEIS is available from the Corps upon request (see
The Beaufort/Chukchi Seas support a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, including bowhead whales (
Sounds and non-acoustic stimuli will be generated during construction by vehicle traffic, ice-cutting, pipeline construction, offshore trenching, gravel dumping, sheet pile driving, and vessel and helicopter operations. Sounds and non-acoustic stimuli will be generated during oil production operations by generators, drilling, production machinery, gas flaring, camp operations and vessel and helicopter operations. The sounds generated from construction and production operations and associated transportation activities will be detectable underwater and/or in air some distance away from the area of the activity, depending upon the nature of the sound source, ambient noise conditions, and the sensitivity of the receptor. At times, some of these sounds are likely to be strong enough to cause an avoidance or other behavioral disturbance reaction by small numbers of marine mammals or to cause masking of signals important to marine mammals. The type and significance of behavioral reaction is likely to depend on the species and season, and the behavior of the animal at the time of reception of the stimulus, as well as the distance and level of the sound relative to ambient conditions.
In winter and spring, on-ice travel and construction activities will displace some small numbers of ringed seals along the ice road and pipeline construction corridors. BPXA began winter construction activities in mid-December, 1999, well in advance of female ringed seals establishing birthing lairs beginning in the latter half of March. The noise and general human activity may displace female seals away from activity areas and could negatively affect the female and young, if the female remained in the vicinity of the ice road.
During the open-water season, all six species of whales and seals could potentially be exposed to vessel or construction noise and to other stimuli associated with the planned operations. Vessel traffic is known to cause avoidance reactions by whales at certain times (Richardson
A more detailed description of potential impacts from construction and operational activities on marine mammals can be found in BPXA's application (BPXA, 1999) and the Corps' FEIS (Corps, 1999). That information is accepted by NMFS as a summation of the best scientific information available on the impacts of noise on marine mammals in this area. Additional information used by NMFS in this determination can be found in Richardson
For reasons stated in the application, BPXA believes that the effects of oil on seals and whales in the open waters of the Beaufort Sea are likely to be negligible, but there could be effects on whales in areas where both oil and the whales are at least partially confined in leads or at the ice edge. In the spring, bowhead and beluga whales migrate through offshore leads in the ice. However, given the probable alongshore trajectory of oil spilled from Northstar, in relation to the whale migration route through offshore waters, interactions between oil and whales are unlikely in the spring. In the summer, bowheads are normally found in Canadian waters, and beluga whales are found far offshore. As a result, at this time of the year, these species will be unaffected should a spill occur. However, oil that persists in the Beaufort Sea into the fall or winter and is not contained and/or removed may impact bowhead whales.
In the fall, the migration route of bowheads can be close to shore. If bowheads were moving through leads in the pack ice, or were concentrated in nearshore waters, or if the oil migrated seaward of the barrier islands, some bowhead whales might not be able to avoid oil slicks and could be subject to prolonged contamination. However, because the autumn migration of bowhead whales past Northstar extends over several weeks and because most of the whales travel along routes well north of Northstar, according to BPXA, only a small minority of the whales are likely to intercept patches of spilled oil. The effects of oil on these whales have been described in several documents (BPXA, 1999; Corps, 1999; Loughlin
Ringed seals exposed to oil during the winter or early spring could die if exposed to heavy doses of oil for prolonged periods of time. Prolonged exposure could occur if fuel or crude oil was spilled in or reached nearshore waters, was spilled in a lead used by seals, or was spilled under the ice when seals have limited mobility. Individual seals residing in these habitats may not be able to avoid prolonged contamination and some would die. Studies in Prince William Sound indicated a long-term decline of 36 percent in numbers of molting harbor seals located on those haulouts affected by oil from the EXXON VALDEZ spill. In addition, newborn seal pups, if contacted by oil, will likely die from oiling through loss of insulation and resulting hypothermia (BPXA, 1999). Because the number of ringed and bearded seals in the central Beaufort Sea represents a relatively small portion of their total populations, and even large oil spills are not expected to extend over large areas, relatively few ringed and bearded seals would be impacted, and impacts on regional population size would be expected to be minor.
In addition to oil contacting marine mammals, oil spill cleanup activities could increase disturbance effects on either whales or seals, causing temporary disruption and possible displacement effects (MMS, 1996; BPXA, 1999). In the event of a large spill contacting and extensively oiling coastal habitats, the presence of response staff, equipment, and many low-flying aircraft involved in the cleanup will (depending on the time of the spill and cleanup), potentially displace seals and other marine mammals. However, the potential effects on bowhead and beluga whales are expected to be less than those on seals. The whales tend to occur well offshore where cleanup activities (during the open water season) are unlikely to be concentrated (BPXA, 1999). Also, because bowheads are transient and during the majority of the year, absence from the area would lessen the likelihood of impact by cleanup activities.
BPXA (1999) estimates that, during the ice-covered period, 91 (maximum 125) ringed seals and 1 (maximum 5) bearded seals potentially may be incidentally harassed during construction activities and 77 (maximum 105) ringed seals and 1 (maximum 5) bearded seals potentially may be incidentally harassed annually during oil production activities. BPXA estimates these takings by harassment during the ice-covered season by assuming that seals within 3.7 km (2.3 mi) of Seal Island, within 1.85 km (1.1 mi) of the pipeline construction corridor and related work areas, and within 0.66 km (0.4 mi) of ice roads will be “taken” annually. These anticipated levels of potential take are estimated based on observed densities of seals during recent (1997-1999) BPXA/LGL aerial surveys in the Northstar area during spring (Miller
NMFS notes moreover, that BPXA has recently adopted new methods for on-ice monitoring of ringed seals which include the use of dogs to find seal structures. These new methods may result in a better estimate of the numbers of seals actually taken by different industrial activities.
During the open-water season, BPXA (1999) estimates that 7 (maximum 22) ringed seals, 1 spotted seal, 1-5 bearded seals, 173 (maximum 1,533) bowhead whales, less than 5 gray whales, and 6 (maximum 45) beluga whales may be incidentally harassed annually whether from construction or operations. BPXA assumes that seals and beluga whales within 1 km (0.6 mi) radius of Seal Island will be harassed incidental to construction and other activities on the island. Assumed “take” radii for bowhead whales are based on the distance at which the received level of construction noise from the island would diminish below 115 dB re 1 μPa. This distance has been estimated as 3.2 km (2 mi).
Although the potential impacts to the several marine mammal species known to occur in these areas is expected to be limited to harassment, a small number of marine mammals may incur lethal and serious injury. Most effects, however, are expected to be limited to temporary changes in behavior or displacement from a relatively small area near the construction site and will involve only small numbers of animals relative to the size of the populations. However, the inadvertent and unavoidable take by injury or mortality of small numbers of ringed seal pups may occur during ice clearing for construction of ice roads. In addition, some injury or mortality of whales or seals may result in the event that an oil spill occurs. As a result, BPXA requested that, because a small number of marine mammals might be injured or killed, that takings by mortality also be covered by the regulations. However, BPXA does not indicate the level of incidental take resulting from an oil spill at Northstar during either the ice-covered period or the open-water period. Because of the unpredictable occurrence, nature, seasonal timing, duration, and size of an oil spill occurring during the 5-year authorization period of these regulations, a specific prediction cannot be made of the estimated number of takes by an oil spill.
According to BPXA, in the unlikely event of a major oil spill at Northstar or from the associated subsea pipeline, numbers of marine mammals killed or injured are expected to be small and the effects on the populations negligible. While NMFS agrees that a major oil spill is unlikely during the 5-year period of these regulations, and believes that it is even less likely that spilled oil will intercept large numbers of marine mammals, NMFS cannot necessarily conclude that the effects on marine mammal populations will be negligible. Depending upon magnitude of the spill, its location and seasonality, an oil spill could have the potential to affect ringed and bearded seals, and/or bowhead and beluga whales. Because of the large population size of ringed seals and bearded seals and the small number of animals in the immediate vicinity of the Northstar facility, and because spilled oil is unlikely to disperse widely and, therefore, affect large numbers of seals, NMFS has determined that the effect on ringed and bearded seals will be negligible, even in the unlikely event that a major oil spill occurred.
Bowhead and beluga whales, however, while potentially less likely to come into contact with spilled oil because of their more prevalent offshore distribution, and potentially less seriously affected when in oiled waters provided their passage is not blocked, may be affected more seriously, if impacted, because of their smaller population sizes. However, based upon the Corps' analysis that there is less than a 10-percent chance of a major oil spill occurring during the 20-30 year lifespan of Northstar, and because NMFS believes that the potential for a major oil spill occurring during the 5-year period of these regulations and intercepting these species would be significantly less than 10 percent (approaching 1 percent), NMFS can
This section contains a summary on the potential impacts from construction and operational activities on subsistence needs for marine mammals. A more detailed description can be found in BPXA's application. This information, in conjunction with information provided by the AEWC and NSB in their comments, and information provided in the Corps' FEIS, is accepted by NMFS as the best information available to date on the potential effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses in the Beaufort Sea area. Should new information on the impacts to subsistence harvest of bowhead whales become available that may be contrary to the determination made here, NMFS will consider the information during review of a request for future LOAs and/or their renewal.
The disturbance and potential displacement of bowhead whales and other marine mammals by sounds from vessel traffic, on-island construction activities (
Construction activities and associated vessel and helicopter support began in December 1999, and are expected to continue into September or October 2000, depending upon ice conditions. Few bowhead whales approach the Northstar area before the end of August, and subsistence whaling generally does not begin until after September 1 and occurs in areas well east of the construction site. Therefore, a substantial portion of the Northstar development is expected to be completed when no bowhead whales are nearby and when no whaling is underway. Insofar as possible, BPXA expects vessel and aircraft traffic near areas of particular concern for whaling will be completed before the end of August. In addition, BPXA does not expect impact hammering to occur during the period when subsistence hunting of migrating bowhead whales is underway. NMFS expects that construction activities that have the potential to disturb bowheads just prior to, and during the bowhead subsistence hunt, would be subject for discussion and resolution during the C&AA discussions. However, even without an agreement to curtail activities during this period, NMFS does not believe these activities will create sufficient level of noise to result in an unmitigable adverse affect on subsistence uses of the bowhead.
Underwater sounds from drilling and production operations on an artificial gravel island are not very strong, and are not expected to travel more than about 10 km (6.2 mi) from the source. BPXA states that even those bowheads traveling along the southern edge of the migration corridor are not expected to be able to even hear sounds from Northstar until the whales are well west of the main hunting area.
Drilling will begin in the latter part of 2000 but will temporarily cease in mid-2001 to allow installation and start-up of processing facilities. Drilling is expected to resume by November 2001, after the bowhead season, and continue until approximately November, 2002. Drilling is, therefore, unlikely to impact either the bowheads or the subsistence needs for this species, prior to the 2002 bowhead season.
Nuiqsut is the community closest to the area of the proposed activity, and it harvests bowhead whales only during the fall whaling season. In recent years, Nuiqsut whalers typically take zero to four whales each season (BPXA, 1999). Nuiqsut whalers concentrate their efforts on areas north and east of Cross Island, generally in water depths greater than 20 m (65 ft). Cross Island, the principle field camp location for Nuiqsut whalers, is located approximately 28.2 km (17.5 mi) east of the Northstar construction activity area.
Whalers from the village of Kaktovik search for whales east, north, and west of their village. Kaktovik is located approximately 200 km (124.3 mi) east of Northstar. The westernmost reported harvest location was about 21 km (13 mi) west of Kaktovik, near 70°10'N. 144°W. (Kaleak, 1996). That site is approximately 180 km (112 mi) east of Northstar.
Whalers from the village of Barrow search for bowhead whales much further from the Northstar area, greater than 250 km (>175 mi) west.
While the effects on migrating bowheads from noise created by Northstar construction or production are not expected to extend into the area where Nuiqsut hunters usually search for bowheads and, therefore, are not expected to affect the accessibility of bowhead whales to hunters, it is recognized that it is difficult to determine the maximum distance at which reactions occur (Moore and Clark, 1992). As a result, in order to avoid any unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence needs and to reduce potential interference with the hunt, the timing of various construction activities at Northstar as well as barge and aircraft traffic in the Cross Island area will be addressed in a C&AA between BPXA and the AEWC on behalf of its bowhead whale subsistence hunters. Also, NMFS believes that the September 1999, Technical Monitoring Plan that will be implemented by BPXA will provide information that will help resolve uncertainties about the effects of construction noise on the accessibility of bowheads to hunters.
While Northstar activity has some potential to influence subsistence seal hunting activities, the most important sealing area for Nuiqsut hunters is off the Colville delta, extending as far west as Fish Creek and as far east as Pingok Island (BPXA, 1999). Pingok Island is about 24 km (15 mi) west of Northstar. The peak season for seal hunting is during the summer months, but some hunting is conducted on the landfast ice in late spring. In summer, boat crews hunt ringed, spotted and bearded seals (BPXA, 1999). Thus, it is unlikely that construction activity will have a significant negative impact on Nuiqsut seal hunting.
Oil spills have the potential to affect the hunt for bowhead whales. While oil spills from production drilling or pipelines could occur at any time of the year, NMFS believes that only if a significant spill occurred just prior to or during the subsistence bowhead hunt and spread into offshore waters would a reduction in the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence uses be possible. While unlikely, oil spills could extend into the bowhead hunting area under certain wind and current conditions. BPXA (1999) states that even in the event of a major spill, it is unlikely that more than a small number of those bowheads encountered by hunters would be contaminated by oil. However, disturbance associated with reconnaissance and cleanup activities could affect bowhead whales and, thus, accessibility of bowheads to hunters. As
Invertebrates and fish, the nutritional basis for those whales and seals found in the Beaufort Sea, may be affected by construction and operation of the Northstar project. Fish may react to noise from Northstar with reactions being quite variable and dependent upon species, life history stage, behavior, and the sound characteristics of the water. Invertebrates are not known to be affected by noise. Benthic invertebrates would be affected by island and pipeline construction and overburden placement on the seabottom. Fish may be temporarily or permanently displaced by the island. These local, short-term effects are unlikely to have an impact on marine mammal feeding, except on a very local scale.
In the event of a large oil spill, fish and zooplankton in open offshore waters are unlikely to be seriously affected. Fish and zooplankton in shallow nearshore waters could sustain heavy mortality if an oil spill were to remain within an area for several days or longer. These affected nearshore areas may then be unavailable for use as feeding habitat for seals and whales. However, because these seals and whales are mobile, and bowhead feeding is uncommon along the coast near Northstar, effects would be minor during the open water season. In winter, effects of an oil spill on ringed seal food supply and habitat would be locally significant in the shallow nearshore waters in the immediate vicinity of the spill and oil slick. However, effects overall would be negligible.
Several mitigation measures were proposed by BPXA to reduce harassment takes to the lowest level practicable and have been adopted, with modification, by NMFS. Additional measures may be added or modified in LOAs. Presently identified measures include:
(1) BPXA will begin winter construction activities in December. This will eliminate contact with lairs that are actively used as birthing lairs. Because it is still necessary to determine the number of structures impacted by winter construction, BPXA will survey the area(s) using trained dogs, to identify and avoid ringed seal structures by a minimum of 150 m (492 ft), if practicable.
(2) Other than work done on the primary ice roads, if construction activities are initiated in undisturbed areas BPXA will survey the area(s), using trained dogs, in order to identify and avoid ringed seal structures by a minimum of 150 m (492 ft); after March 20, activities should avoid, to the greatest extent practicable, disturbance of any located seal structure.
(3) During the open water season, BPXA will establish and monitor, during the daytime, a 190 dB re 1 μPa safety range for seals around the island for those construction activities with SPLs that exceed that level. Establishing the safety range will require the collection and analysis of sound attenuation in the waters of the Northstar site.
(4) While whales are unlikely to approach the island during impact hammering or other noisy activities, a 180 dB re 1 μPa safety zone will be established and monitored during daylight hours around the island.
(5) If any marine mammals are observed within their respective safety range, operations will cease until such time as the observed marine mammals have left the safety zone.
(6) Project scheduling indicates that impact hammering will not occur during the period for subsistence hunting of westward migrating bowhead whale.
(7) Helicopter flights to support Northstar construction will be limited to a corridor from Seal Island to the mainland, and, except when limited by weather, will maintain a minimum altitude of 1,000 ft (305 m).
(8) Drilling activities will temporarily cease during the bowhead whale migration during the first year of drilling activity (
A detailed description of BPXA's proposed monitoring program for implementation during the construction phase at Northstar can be found in both the revised BPXA application (BPXA, 1999) and revised Technical Monitoring Plan (LGL, LGL and Greeneridge, 1999). The open-water season portion of BPXA's May 6, 1999, monitoring plan was reviewed by scientists and others attending the annual open-water peer-review workshop held in Seattle on July 1, 1999. The Technical Monitoring Plan was revised to incorporate recommendations made during this meeting and submitted to NMFS on September 1, 1999. This document was provided to the public during the comment period on the proposed rule. Peer review on the on-ice portion of the plan was conducted on October 14-15, 1999. Recommendations from that workshop were incorporated into work conducted this past winter and will be incorporated, as appropriate, into future monitoring plans. A copy of the September 1, 1999, revised monitoring plan is available upon request (see
A summary of marine mammal monitoring that will be conducted during Northstar construction this year is provided here.
Monitoring will employ both marine mammal observations and acoustic measurements and recordings. During the open-water period, monitoring will consist of (1) acoustic measurements of sounds produced by construction activities through boat-based hydrophones, sonobuoys deployed by boat, and autonomous seafloor acoustic recorders; (2) observations of marine mammals (primarily seals) from an elevated platform on Seal Island, which will be made during periods with and without construction underway; and, (3)
During the ice-covered season, BPXA proposes to continue an ongoing (since the spring, 1997) Before-After/Control-Impact Study on the distribution and abundance of ringed seals in relation to development of the offshore oil and gas resources in the central Beaufort Sea. Collection and analysis of data before and after construction is expected to provide a reliable method for assessing the impact of oil and gas activities on ringed seal distribution in the Northstar construction area. Other winter/spring monitoring will include (1) on-ice searches for ringed seal lairs in areas where construction starts in the mid-March through April period, (2) assessment of abandonment rates for seal holes, and (3) acoustic measurements of sounds and vibrations from construction. Additional monitoring may be required by NMFS through the peer review workshops.
NMFS expects that the technical monitoring plan for production will be submitted to NMFS later this year and subject to review by NMFS biologists and revised appropriately prior to implementation.
BPXA is required to provide two reports annually to NMFS. The first report is due 90 days after either the ice roads are no longer usable or spring aerial surveys are completed, whichever is later. The second report is required to be forwarded to NMFS 90 days after the formation of ice in the central Alaskan Beaufort Sea prevents water access to Northstar. These reports must include the dates and locations of construction activities, details of marine mammal sightings, estimates of the amount and nature of marine mammal takes, and any apparent effects on accessibility of marine mammals to subsistence hunters.
A draft final technical report must be submitted to NMFS by April 1 of each year. The final technical report must fully describe the methods and results of all monitoring tasks and a complete analysis of the data. The draft final report will be subject to peer review before being finalized by BPXA.
NMFS has determined that the impact of construction and operation of the Northstar project in the U.S. Beaufort Sea will result in no more than a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of cetaceans and pinnipeds. During the ice-covered season, pinnipeds close to the island may be subject to incidental harassment due to the localized displacement from construction of ice roads, from transportation activities on those roads, and from construction and production activities at Northstar. As cetaceans will not be in the area during the ice-covered season, they will not be affected.
During the open-water season, the principal construction- and operations-related noise activities will be impact hammering, helicopter traffic, vessel traffic, and other general construction/production activity on Seal Island. Sheet-pile driving is expected to be completed prior to whales being present in the area. Sounds from construction/production activities on the island are not expected to be detectable more than about 5-10 km (3.1-6.2 mi) offshore of the island. Disturbance to bowhead or beluga whales by on-island activities will be limited to an area substantially less than that distance. Helicopter traffic will be limited to nearshore areas between the mainland and the island and is unlikely to approach or disturb whales. Barge traffic will be located mainly inshore of the whales and will involve vessels moving slowly, in a straight line, and at constant speed. Little disturbance or displacement of whales by vessel traffic is expected. While behavioral modifications may be made by these species to avoid the resultant noise, this behavioral change is expected to have no more than a negligible impact on the animals.
While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals (which vary annually due to variable ice conditions and other factors) in the area of operations, because the activity is in shallow waters inshore of the main migration corridor for bowhead whales and far inshore of the main migration corridor for belugas, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small. In addition, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document. No rookeries, areas of concentrated mating or feeding, or other areas of special significance for marine mammals occur within or near the planned area of operations.
Because bowhead whales are east of the construction/production area in the Canadian Beaufort Sea until late August/early September, activities at Northstar are not expected to impact subsistence hunting of bowhead whales prior to that date. Appropriate mitigation measures to avoid an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence needs will be the subject of consultation between BPXA and subsistence users.
Also, while construction/production at Northstar has some potential to influence seal hunting activities by residents of Nuiqsut, because (1) the peak sealing season is during the winter months, (2) the main summer sealing is off the Colville Delta, and (3) the zone of influence from Northstar on beluga and seals is fairly small, NMFS believes that Northstar construction/production will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these stocks for subsistence uses.
NMFS has determined that the potential for an offshore oil spill occurring is low (less than 10 percent over 20-30 years (Corps, 1999)) and the potential for that oil intercepting whales or seals is even lower (about 1.2 percent (Corps, 1999)). Because of this low potential and because of the seasonality of bowheads, NMFS has determined that the taking of marine mammals incidental to construction and operation at the Northstar oil production facility will have no more than a negligible impact on them. In addition, because there will be an oil spill response program in effect that will be as effective as possible in Arctic waters, and because other mitigation measures have been suggested in the event that oil did contact bowheads, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals.
In addition to the modifications made to the proposed rule as a result of comments discussed previously and corrections of minor typographical errors, the following amendments have been made to the document.
Section 216.207 has been amended to clarify that this paragraph is intended only for the initial submission of an application for an LOA, not for subsequent renewals.
Section 216.209(a)(2) has been amended to note the time needed for receipt of the monitoring reports required under 216.205.
On March 4, 1999, NMFS concluded consultation with the Corps on permitting the construction and operation at the Northstar site. The finding of that consultation was that construction and operation at Northstar is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bowhead whale stock.
On June 12, 1998 (63 FR 32207), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) noted the availability for public review and comment a DEIS prepared by the Corps under NEPA on Beaufort Sea oil and gas development at Northstar. Comments on that document were accepted by the Corps until August 31, 1998 (63 FR 43699, August 14, 1998). On February 5, 1999 (64 FR 5789), EPA noted the availability for public review and comment, a FEIS prepared by the Corps under NEPA on Beaufort Sea oil and gas development at Northstar. Comments on that document were accepted by the Corps until March 8, 1999. For information on obtaining a copy of the FEIS, please contact the Corps (see
This action has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Until these regulations are effective, BPXA cannot be issued an LOA authorizing takings incidental to construction and operation at Northstar. Therefore, since these regulations relieve a restriction on BPXA, the prohibitions on the issuance of an LOA, are not subject to a 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified, at the proposed rule stage, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This final rule will affect only one or two large oil producing companies which, by definition, are not small businesses. It will also affect a small number of contractors providing services related to monitoring the impact of oil development in the Beaufort Sea on marine mammals. Some of the affected contractors may be small businesses, but the number involved would not be substantial. Further, since the monitoring requirement is what would lead to the need for their services, the economic impact on them would be beneficial. For all the above reasons, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements have been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0151, and include an application for an LOA, an interim report, and a final report. Other information requirements in the rule are not subject to the PRA since they apply only to a single entity and, therefore, are not contained in a rule of general applicability.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The reporting burden for the approved collections-of-information are estimated to be approximately 3 hours for an application for a LOA, and 80 hours each for interim and final reports. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see
Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Transportation.
16 U.S.C. 1361
Regulations in this subpart apply only to the incidental taking of those marine mammal species specified in paragraph (b) of this section by U.S. citizens engaged in oil and gas development activities in areas within state and/or Federal waters in the U.S. Beaufort Sea specified in paragraph (a) of this section. The authorized activities as specified in a Letter of Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 and 216.208 include, but may not be limited to, site construction, including ice road and pipeline construction, vessel and helicopter activity; and oil production activities, including ice road construction, and vessel and helicopter activity, but excluding seismic operations.
(a)(1) Northstar Oil and Gas Development; and
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The incidental take by harassment, injury or mortality of marine mammals under the activity identified in this section is limited to the following species: bowhead whale (
Regulations in this subpart are effective from May 25, 2000, until May 25, 2005.
(a) Under Letters of Authorization issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 216.208, the Holder of the Letter of Authorization may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals by harassment, injury, and mortality within the area described in § 216.200(a), provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate Letter of Authorization.
(b) The activities identified in § 216.200 must be conducted in a manner that minimizes, to the greatest extent practicable, any adverse impacts on marine mammals, their habitat, and on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.
Notwithstanding takings authorized by § 216.200 and by a Letter of Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 and 216.208, no person in connection with the activities described in § 216.200 shall:
(a) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 216.200(b);
(b) Take any marine mammal specified in § 216.200(b) other than by incidental, unintentional harassment, injury or mortality;
(c) Take a marine mammal specified in § 216.200(b) if such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or
(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart or a Letter of Authorization issued under § 216.106.
The activity identified in § 216.200(a) must be conducted in a manner that minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on marine mammals and their habitats. When conducting operations identified in § 216.200, the mitigation measures contained in the Letter of Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 and 216.208 must be utilized.
When applying for a Letter of Authorization pursuant to § 216.207, or a renewal of a Letter of Authorization pursuant to § 216.209, the applicant must submit a Plan of Cooperation that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. A plan must include the following:
(a) A statement that the applicant has notified and met with the affected subsistence communities to discuss proposed activities and to resolve potential conflicts regarding timing and methods of operation;
(b) A description of what measures the applicant has taken and/or will take to ensure that oil development activities will not interfere with subsistence whaling or sealing;
(c) What plans the applicant has to continue to meet with the affected communities to notify the communities of any changes in operation.
(a) Holders of Letters of Authorization issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 216.208 for activities described in § 216.200 are required to cooperate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and any other Federal, state or local agency monitoring the impacts of the activity on marine mammals. Unless specified otherwise in the Letter of Authorization, the Holder of the Letter of Authorization must notify the Administrator, Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, or his/her designee, by letter or telephone, at least 2 weeks prior to initiating new activities potentially involving the taking of marine mammals.
(b) Holders of Letters of Authorization must designate qualified on-site individuals, approved in advance by the National Marine Fisheries Service, to conduct the mitigation, monitoring and reporting activities specified in the Letter of Authorization issued pursuant to § 216.106 and § 216.208.
(c) Holders of Letters of Authorization must conduct all monitoring and/or research required under the Letter of Authorization.
(d) Unless specified otherwise in the Letter of Authorization, the Holder of that Letter of Authorization must submit interim reports to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, no later than 90 days after completion of the winter monitoring season (approximately September 15th), and 90 days after the open water monitoring season (approximately February 1
(e) A draft annual comprehensive report must be submitted by May 1
(f) A final annual comprehensive report must be submitted within the time period specified in the governing Letter of Authorization.
(g) A final comprehensive report on all marine mammal monitoring and research conducted during the effective period of the regulations in this subpart must be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service at least 240 days prior to expiration of these regulations or 240 days after the expiration of these regulations if renewal of the regulations will not be requested.
(a) To incidentally take bowhead whales and other marine mammals pursuant to the regulations in this subpart, the U.S. citizen (see definition at § 216.103) conducting the activity identified in § 216.200, must apply for and obtain either an initial Letter of Authorization in accordance with §§ 216.106 and 216.208, or a renewal under § 216.209.
(b) The application for an initial Letter of Authorization must be submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service at least 180 days before the activity is scheduled to begin.
(c) Applications for initial Letters of Authorization must include all information items identified in § 216.104(a).
(d) NMFS will review an application for an initial Letter of Authorization in accordance with § 216.104(b) and, if adequate and complete, will publish a notice of receipt of a request for incidental taking and, in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements, a proposed amendment to § 216.200(a). In conjunction with amending § 216.200(a), the National Marine Fisheries Service will provide a minimum of 45 days for public comment on the application for an initial Letter of Authorization.
(e) Upon receipt of a complete application for an initial Letter of Authorization, and at its discretion, the National Marine Fisheries Service may submit the monitoring plan to members of a peer review panel for review and/or schedule a workshop to review the plan. Unless specified in the Letter of Authorization, the applicant must submit a final monitoring plan to the Assistant Administrator prior to the issuance of an initial Letter of Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless suspended, revoked or not renewed, will be valid for a period of time not to exceed the period of validity of this subpart, but must be renewed annually
(b) Each Letter of Authorization will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting, including any requirements for the independent peer-review of proposed monitoring plans.
(c) Issuance and renewal of each Letter of Authorization will be based on a determination that the number of marine mammals taken by the activity will be small, that the total number of marine mammals taken by the activity as a whole will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammal(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of species or stocks of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses.
(d) Notice of issuance or denial of a Letter of Authorization will be published in the
(a) A Letter of Authorization issued under § 216.106 and § 216.208 for the activity identified in § 216.200 will be renewed annually upon:
(1) Notification to the National Marine Fisheries Service that the activity described in the application submitted under § 216.207 will be undertaken and that there will not be a substantial modification to the described work, mitigation or monitoring undertaken during the upcoming season;
(2) Timely receipt of the monitoring reports required under § 216.205, and the Letter of Authorization issued under § 216.208, which have been reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and determined to be acceptable, and the Plan of Cooperation required under § 216.205; and
(3) A determination by the National Marine Fisheries Service that the mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures required under § 216.204 and the Letter of Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 and 216.208, were undertaken and will be undertaken during the upcoming annual period of validity of a renewed Letter of Authorization.
(b) If a request for a renewal of a Letter of Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 and 216.208 indicates that a substantial modification to the described work, mitigation or monitoring undertaken during the upcoming season will occur, the National Marine Fisheries Service will provide the public a minimum of 30 days for review and comment on the request. Review and comment on renewals of Letters of Authorization are restricted to:
(1) New cited information and data that indicates that the determinations made in this subpart are in need of reconsideration,
(2) The Plan of Cooperation, and
(3) The proposed monitoring plan.
(c) A notice of issuance or denial of a Renewal of a Letter of Authorization will be published in the
(a) In addition to complying with the provisions of §§ 216.106 and 216.208, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no substantive modification (including withdrawal or suspension) to the Letter of Authorization by the National Marine Fisheries Service, issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 216.208 and subject to the provisions of this subpart shall be made until after notification and an opportunity for public comment has been provided. For purposes of this paragraph, a renewal of a Letter of Authorization under § 216.209, without modification (except for the period of validity), is not considered a substantive modification.
(b) If the Assistant Administrator determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in § 216.200(b), a Letter of Authorization issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 216.208 may be substantively modified without prior notification and an opportunity for public comment. Notification will be published in the