Notice of Availability of Proposed Guidance on Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and Request for Comments, 37156-37158 [E6-10217]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37156
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices
of member corporations and for
ensuring that member corporations are
generally financially solvent.12
The following areas have been
determined to be adversely affected by
the disaster:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IV. Conclusion
Primary Counties:
Johnson.
Contiguous Counties: Iowa:
Benton, Cedar, Iowa, Linn, Louisa,
Muscatine, Washington.
Federal Highway Administration
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
section 19(b)(2) of the Act,13 that the
proposed rule change (SR–Phlx–2005–
61), as amended, is approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated
authority.14
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06–5792 Filed 6–28–06; 8:45 am]
The Interest Rates are:
Percent
BILLING CODE 8010–01–M
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Disaster Declaration #10505 and #10506]
Iowa Disaster #IA–00004
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This is a notice of an
Administrative declaration of a disaster
for the State of Iowa dated 06/22/2006.
Incident: Severe Storms and
Tornadoes.
Incident Period: 04/13/2006 through
04/14/2006.
Effective Date: 06/22/2006.
Physical Loan Application Deadline
Date: 08/21/2006.
Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan
Application Deadline Date: 03/22/2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan
applications to: U.S. Small Business
Administration, National Processing
and Disbursement Center, 14925
Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.
Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,
U.S. Small Business Administration,
409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050,
Washington, DC 20416.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that as a result of the
Administrator’s disaster declaration
applications for disaster loans may be
filed at the address listed above or other
locally announced locations.
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere .........................
Homeowners
Without
Credit
Available Elsewhere ..................
Businesses With Credit Available
Elsewhere .................................
Businesses & Small Agricultural
Cooperatives Without Credit
Available Elsewhere ..................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available
Elsewhere .................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere .........................
5.750
2.875
7.408
4.000
5.000
4.000
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
12 See e.g., Phlx Rule 909 (requiring member
organizations to provide and maintain security for
any claims owed to the Exchange and other
members and member organizations); and Phlx Rule
924 (making the member organization liable for the
fees, fines, dues, penalties and other amounts
imposed by the Exchange on its members; this
provision applies regardless of the officer or
ownership status of the member). According to
Phlx, member corporations are a subset of member
organizations. Therefore, Phlx Rules 909 and 924
apply to member corporations.
13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Jun 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
The number assigned to this disaster
for physical damage is 10505 C and for
economic injury is 10506 0.
The State which received an EIDL
Declaration # is Iowa.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Numbers 59002 and 59008)
Hector V. Barreto,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–10227 Filed 6–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
National Advisory Council; Notice of
Cancellation for Public Meeting
The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA), National
Advisory Council public meeting
originally scheduled for Friday, June 30,
2006, will be cancelled until further
notice. The Web site will be updated
with information on the new date, time
and location. The Web site is https://
www.sba.gov/nac/index.hml.
If you have any questions, please
contact Balbina Caldwell, Director of the
National Advisory Council, SBA
Headquarters, 409 3rd Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20416, phone (202)
205–6914, e-mail:
Balbina.Caldwell@sba.gov.
Matthew K. Becker,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6–10229 Filed 6–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket Number: FTA–2006–24905]
Notice of Availability of Proposed
Guidance on Section 6002 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA–LU) and Request
for Comments
Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCIES:
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
availability of proposed guidance on the
application of section 6002 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59,
119 Stat. 1144) to projects funded by the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), or both. Section 6002 of
SAFETEA–LU adds requirements and
refinements to the environmental
review process for highway and public
transportation capital projects. The
proposed guidance describes how FTA
and FHWA propose to implement the
new requirements within the
environmental review process required
by the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and other Federal laws. The
FTA and FHWA request public
comments on this proposed guidance.
DATES: Comments must be received by
July 31, 2006. Late filed comments will
be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: The proposed guidance is
available on the FTA Web site at
https://www.fta.dot.gov/Section6002.doc,
in the DOT docket at https://dms.dot.gov
in docket number FTA–2006–24905, or
in hardcopy by contacting the
individuals listed below under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comments, which must be identified
by the docket number FTA–2006–
24905, may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
Web site: Link to https://dms.dot.gov
and follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT
electronic docket site.
Fax: Telefax comments to (202) 493–
2251.
U.S. Mail: Mail comments to Docket
Management Facility; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM
29JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices
Building at 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
For access to the docket to view a
complete copy of the proposed
guidance, or to read any comments
received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any
time or to Room PL–401 on the plaza
level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You must include the
agency name (Federal Transit
Administration) and the docket number
(FTA–2006–24905) with the comments.
You should submit two copies of your
comments if you submit them by mail.
If you wish to receive confirmation that
the docket received your comments, you
must include a self-addressed stamped
postcard. All comments received will be
posted without change to the
Department’s Docket Management
System (DMS) Web site located at
https://dms.dot.gov, so that any
interested party can view the comments
of others. As a result, any personal
identifying information included in
your comments will be publicly
available to any user of DMS. Anyone is
able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may view DOT’s complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70, pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
FTA: Joseph Ossi, Office of Planning
and Environment (TPE), (202) 366–
1613, or Christopher Van Wyk, Office of
Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366–1733,
Federal Transit Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590.
For FHWA: Pamela Stephenson,
Office of Project Development (HEPE),
(202) 366–2062, or Janet Myers, Office
of Chief Counsel (HCC), (202) 366–2019,
Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
An electronic copy of this notice may
be downloaded using a computer,
modem and suitable communications
software from the Government Printing
Office’s Electronic Bulletin Board
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 Jun 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
Service at (202) 512–1661. Internet users
may reach the Office of the Federal
Register’s home page at https://
www.archives.gov and the Government
Printing Office’s Web site at https://
www.access.gpo.gov. An electronic
version of the proposed guidance may
be downloaded by accessing the DOT
DMS docket, as described above, at
https://dms.dot.gov.
Background
The FTA and FHWA are proposing
the issuance of joint guidance on the
environmental review process required
by section 6002 of SAFETEA–LU
(Section 6002), which has been codified
at 23 U.S.C. 139. Section 6002 adds
requirements and refinements to the
process by which FHWA and FTA
comply with NEPA, which process is set
forth in the regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40
CFR parts 1500 through 1508, and in the
FHWA–FTA environmental impact
regulation, 23 CFR part 771. Section
6002 addresses the roles of the project
sponsor and the lead, participating, and
cooperating agencies; sets new
requirements for coordinating and
scheduling agency reviews; broadens
the authority of States to use Federal aid
to ensure timely environmental reviews;
specifies a process for resolving
interagency disagreements; and
establishes a statute of limitations on
claims against transportation projects.
The purpose of this proposed
guidance is to provide explanations of
new and changed aspects of the
environmental review process for
FHWA and FTA. The guidance would
inform transportation practitioners and
others about what and how things need
to be done differently as a result of
SAFETEA–LU. Although this proposed
guidance outlines new requirements
affecting the environmental review
process, it does not supersede any
regulations promulgated under NEPA or
any other Federal environmental statute.
In particular, this proposed guidance
would supplement the previously
mentioned CEQ regulations (40 CFR
parts 1500–1508) and FHWA–FTA
environmental impact regulation (23
CFR part 771) which remain in effect.
The intent of this proposed guidance is
to provide project sponsors with as
much flexibility as possible in
administering the environmental review
process, while providing a framework to
facilitate efficient project management
and decision-making in accordance with
the law.
Section 3032 of SAFETEA–LU
requires that FTA provide an
opportunity for public review and
comment on any guidance issued by
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37157
FTA that imposes new binding
obligations or that effects a significant
change in policy, before it becomes
effective. The FTA has determined that
section 3032 applies to this joint
FHWA–FTA guidance on section 6002.
The purpose of this notice and the
comment period that follows is to
comply with section 3032. Section 3032
requirements do not apply to FHWA,
but FHWA is nevertheless joining FTA
in the publication of this notice and
request for comment.
The FTA and FHWA request
comment on the proposed guidance in
general, which is available as described
above under ADDRESSES. The FTA also
specifically seeks comment on two
issues:
1. Schedules for FTA Projects. Should
FTA require the development of a
schedule for all FTA projects requiring
an environmental impact statement
(EIS)? Section 6002 makes the inclusion
of a project schedule in the
‘‘coordination plan’’ for the project
optional, but FHWA already requires
the development of a project schedule
for EISs. Under Section 6002, the
schedule, when developed, becomes
part of the mandatory coordination plan
for the EIS. The FTA is considering
whether to require, in the interest of
good project management, the
development of a project schedule and
its inclusion in the coordination plan
for any transit project requiring an EIS.
2. New Starts Alternatives Analysis.
Should FTA continue to allow a New
Starts Alternatives Analysis, as defined
in 49 U.S.C. 5309(a)(1), to be developed
as a non-Federal planning document not
subject to NEPA regulatory
requirements, or should FTA require
that New Starts Alternatives Analysis be
merged into the NEPA document
(normally an EIS for New Starts
projects), be subject to NEPA regulatory
requirements, and be signed by the FTA
Regional Administrator? Until 1993, all
New Starts projects requiring EISs were
developed using the latter approach,
i.e., the combined Alternatives
Analysis/Draft EIS. The planning
regulations issued in 1993, at 23 CFR
part 450, provided the option of a
planning study, called a Major
Investment Study (MIS), to serve as the
required New Starts Alternatives
Analysis. Notwithstanding statutory
changes to the MIS requirement in 1998,
FTA continued to allow the stillrequired New Starts Alternatives
Analysis to be either a planning study
or a NEPA document. Some have
suggested that a change may again be in
order as a result of two specific
SAFETEA–LU provisions: (a) The
definition of the New Starts Alternatives
E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM
29JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
37158
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices
Analysis in Section 3011 of SAFETEA–
LU, codified at 49 U.S.C. 5309(a)(1),
aligns it more closely with the MPO
planning process; and (b) section 6002
requires that the ‘‘type of work’’ be
identified by the project sponsor at the
initiation of the environmental review
process. The FTA seeks comment on
any implications of these provisions for
the New Starts Alternatives Analysis
and the NEPA review of the New Starts
project.
The FHWA specifically seeks
comment on the following questions
and issues:
1. Flexibility. Are there specific areas
where the guidance could and should
provide greater flexibility, while still
complying with the relevant section
6002 requirement? Within the limits of
section 6002, would flexibility in a
particular area allow for customization
by the State departments of
transportation, transit agencies, and
FHWA and FTA field offices in
response to issues of greater regional
concern?
2. Adequacy of guidance. Are there
areas that need additional guidance or
instruction on how best to implement
the new requirement?
3. Lead agency responsibilities. Some
responsibilities of the lead agency have
been retained by FHWA and FTA, some
have been essentially assigned to the
State or local lead agency, and some
have been left for the Federal and nonFederal lead agencies to allocate
between themselves, project by project
as they see fit. Does the description of
the roles of the various lead agencies
adequately communicate their
respective responsibilities, authorities,
and limitations? Is the division of labor,
responsibility, and authority
appropriate?
4. Methodologies for project analyses.
Is the process for involving participating
agencies in the development of
methodologies adequate? Will it serve to
minimize late-in-the-process
methodological debates between
transportation agencies and resource
agencies?
5. Coordination with participating
agencies. Does the proposed guidance
present the required coordination with
participating agencies, including the
development of a schedule and its
resulting implications, in sufficient
detail? Should changes in the schedule
require coordination with all
participating agencies or just with the
cooperating agencies, as stated in
SAFETEA–LU?
The FTA and FHWA will respond to
comments on the guidance generated by
this Notice in a second Federal Register
notice to be published after the close of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 Jun 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
the comment period. That second notice
will also announce the availability of
the revised Section 6002 guidance that
reflects the changes implemented as a
result of comments received. In the
meantime, the proposed guidance
provides the current FHWA and FTA
interpretation of Section 6002, the
requirements of which became effective
on August 10, 2005, the date of
SAFETEA–LU’s enactment.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; Pub. L. 109–59,
119 Stat. 1144; 49 U.S.C. 5334; 23 U.S.C. 139;
49 CFR 1.48; 49 CFR 1.51.
Issued on: June 23, 2006.
Sandra K. Bushue,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration.
J. Richard Capka,
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–10217 Filed 6–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Environmental Impact Statement:
Relocation or Reconstruction of Rail
Lines in Tupelo, MS
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) is issuing this
notice to advise the public that FRA will
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the relocation or
reconstruction of railroad lines in the
Tupelo, Mississippi central business
district. The study area is defined to
extend from the vicinity of Plantersville,
MS, southeast of Tupelo, to the vicinity
of Sherman, northwest of Tupelo.
Tupelo is the primary business center of
northeast Mississippi.
Currently, within the central business
district there are more than 25 at-grade
rail crossings on two railroad lines. One
of the rail lines is owned by the BNSF
Railway Company (BNSF) and the other
by the Kansas City Southern Railroad
(KCS). The two rail lines cross at an
interchange near downtown Tupelo.
There are between twenty and twentyfive trains per day on the BNSF line,
and three or four per day on the KCS
line. There are few rail customers
remaining in the central business
district, and most of the trains are
through trains operating in the
Birmingham, Alabama to Memphis,
Tennessee corridor.
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Traffic congestion is already a
significant problem in the central
business district, and the current rail
line configuration is a contributing
cause to this congestion. The switchyard
between the two lines is within the
central business district, and the BNSF
line runs diagonally through the highest
volume intersection in the city. Tupelo’s
employment has been growing at a
steady pace of about 1,000 jobs per year
for the last few years, which only
increases vehicular traffic to the area
and further exacerbates the situation.
Moreover, issues with access to
emergency facilities exist in that many
Tupelo residents may be cut off from the
regional medical center due to delays
caused by the rail line and switching
station.
The FRA has entered into a
cooperative agreement with the
Mississippi Department of
Transportation (MDOT), with FRA as
the lead Federal agency and MDOT as
the lead state agency. Funding for the
EIS was provided through an
appropriation in the Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2004, Public Law
108–199 (January 23, 2004).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Wayne Parrish, Planning Division,
Mississippi Department of
Transportation, 401 N. West Street,
Jackson, MS 39201, telephone number
(601) 359–7685; Mr. John Winkle,
Project Manager, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone
number (202) 493–6067.
Environmental Issues: Possible
environmental impacts include
displacement of commercial and
residential properties, increased noise
in some areas, effects to historical
properties or archaeological sites,
impacts to parks and recreational
resources, viewshed effects, impacts to
water resources, wetlands, and sensitive
biological species and habitat, land use
compatibility impacts, energy use, and
impacts to agricultural lands.
Alternatives: The EIS will consider
alternatives that include: (1) Taking no
action; (2) reconstruction with grade
separation of rail and highway facilities
within the existing corridors; and (3)
relocation and construction of the
railroad line(s) in new location(s).
Scoping and Comment: FRA
encourages broad participation in the
EIS process and review of the resulting
environmental documents. Comments,
questions, and suggestions related to the
project and potential environmental
concerns are invited from all interested
agencies and the public at large to
E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM
29JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 125 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37156-37158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10217]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket Number: FTA-2006-24905]
Notice of Availability of Proposed Guidance on Section 6002 of
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and Request for Comments
AGENCIES: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of proposed guidance on
the application of section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
(Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144) to projects funded by the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), or both. Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU adds requirements and
refinements to the environmental review process for highway and public
transportation capital projects. The proposed guidance describes how
FTA and FHWA propose to implement the new requirements within the
environmental review process required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and other Federal laws. The FTA and FHWA request
public comments on this proposed guidance.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 31, 2006. Late filed comments
will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: The proposed guidance is available on the FTA Web site at
https://www.fta.dot.gov/Section6002.doc, in the DOT docket at https://
dms.dot.gov in docket number FTA-2006-24905, or in hardcopy by
contacting the individuals listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Comments, which must be identified by the docket number FTA-2006-
24905, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Web site: Link to https://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions
for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: Telefax comments to (202) 493-2251.
U.S. Mail: Mail comments to Docket Management Facility; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif
[[Page 37157]]
Building at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For access to the docket to view a complete copy of the proposed
guidance, or to read any comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at
any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit
Administration) and the docket number (FTA-2006-24905) with the
comments. You should submit two copies of your comments if you submit
them by mail. If you wish to receive confirmation that the docket
received your comments, you must include a self-addressed stamped
postcard. All comments received will be posted without change to the
Department's Docket Management System (DMS) Web site located at https://
dms.dot.gov, so that any interested party can view the comments of
others. As a result, any personal identifying information included in
your comments will be publicly available to any user of DMS. Anyone is
able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may view DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70, pages 19477-78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FTA: Joseph Ossi, Office of
Planning and Environment (TPE), (202) 366-1613, or Christopher Van Wyk,
Office of Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366-1733, Federal Transit
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
For FHWA: Pamela Stephenson, Office of Project Development (HEPE),
(202) 366-2062, or Janet Myers, Office of Chief Counsel (HCC), (202)
366-2019, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
An electronic copy of this notice 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 https://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing
Office's Web site at https://www.access.gpo.gov. An electronic version
of the proposed guidance may be downloaded by accessing the DOT DMS
docket, as described above, at https://dms.dot.gov.
Background
The FTA and FHWA are proposing the issuance of joint guidance on
the environmental review process required by section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU
(Section 6002), which has been codified at 23 U.S.C. 139. Section 6002
adds requirements and refinements to the process by which FHWA and FTA
comply with NEPA, which process is set forth in the regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508,
and in the FHWA-FTA environmental impact regulation, 23 CFR part 771.
Section 6002 addresses the roles of the project sponsor and the lead,
participating, and cooperating agencies; sets new requirements for
coordinating and scheduling agency reviews; broadens the authority of
States to use Federal aid to ensure timely environmental reviews;
specifies a process for resolving interagency disagreements; and
establishes a statute of limitations on claims against transportation
projects.
The purpose of this proposed guidance is to provide explanations of
new and changed aspects of the environmental review process for FHWA
and FTA. The guidance would inform transportation practitioners and
others about what and how things need to be done differently as a
result of SAFETEA-LU. Although this proposed guidance outlines new
requirements affecting the environmental review process, it does not
supersede any regulations promulgated under NEPA or any other Federal
environmental statute. In particular, this proposed guidance would
supplement the previously mentioned CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-
1508) and FHWA-FTA environmental impact regulation (23 CFR part 771)
which remain in effect. The intent of this proposed guidance is to
provide project sponsors with as much flexibility as possible in
administering the environmental review process, while providing a
framework to facilitate efficient project management and decision-
making in accordance with the law.
Section 3032 of SAFETEA-LU requires that FTA provide an opportunity
for public review and comment on any guidance issued by FTA that
imposes new binding obligations or that effects a significant change in
policy, before it becomes effective. The FTA has determined that
section 3032 applies to this joint FHWA-FTA guidance on section 6002.
The purpose of this notice and the comment period that follows is to
comply with section 3032. Section 3032 requirements do not apply to
FHWA, but FHWA is nevertheless joining FTA in the publication of this
notice and request for comment.
The FTA and FHWA request comment on the proposed guidance in
general, which is available as described above under ADDRESSES. The FTA
also specifically seeks comment on two issues:
1. Schedules for FTA Projects. Should FTA require the development
of a schedule for all FTA projects requiring an environmental impact
statement (EIS)? Section 6002 makes the inclusion of a project schedule
in the ``coordination plan'' for the project optional, but FHWA already
requires the development of a project schedule for EISs. Under Section
6002, the schedule, when developed, becomes part of the mandatory
coordination plan for the EIS. The FTA is considering whether to
require, in the interest of good project management, the development of
a project schedule and its inclusion in the coordination plan for any
transit project requiring an EIS.
2. New Starts Alternatives Analysis. Should FTA continue to allow a
New Starts Alternatives Analysis, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 5309(a)(1),
to be developed as a non-Federal planning document not subject to NEPA
regulatory requirements, or should FTA require that New Starts
Alternatives Analysis be merged into the NEPA document (normally an EIS
for New Starts projects), be subject to NEPA regulatory requirements,
and be signed by the FTA Regional Administrator? Until 1993, all New
Starts projects requiring EISs were developed using the latter
approach, i.e., the combined Alternatives Analysis/Draft EIS. The
planning regulations issued in 1993, at 23 CFR part 450, provided the
option of a planning study, called a Major Investment Study (MIS), to
serve as the required New Starts Alternatives Analysis. Notwithstanding
statutory changes to the MIS requirement in 1998, FTA continued to
allow the still-required New Starts Alternatives Analysis to be either
a planning study or a NEPA document. Some have suggested that a change
may again be in order as a result of two specific SAFETEA-LU
provisions: (a) The definition of the New Starts Alternatives
[[Page 37158]]
Analysis in Section 3011 of SAFETEA-LU, codified at 49 U.S.C.
5309(a)(1), aligns it more closely with the MPO planning process; and
(b) section 6002 requires that the ``type of work'' be identified by
the project sponsor at the initiation of the environmental review
process. The FTA seeks comment on any implications of these provisions
for the New Starts Alternatives Analysis and the NEPA review of the New
Starts project.
The FHWA specifically seeks comment on the following questions and
issues:
1. Flexibility. Are there specific areas where the guidance could
and should provide greater flexibility, while still complying with the
relevant section 6002 requirement? Within the limits of section 6002,
would flexibility in a particular area allow for customization by the
State departments of transportation, transit agencies, and FHWA and FTA
field offices in response to issues of greater regional concern?
2. Adequacy of guidance. Are there areas that need additional
guidance or instruction on how best to implement the new requirement?
3. Lead agency responsibilities. Some responsibilities of the lead
agency have been retained by FHWA and FTA, some have been essentially
assigned to the State or local lead agency, and some have been left for
the Federal and non-Federal lead agencies to allocate between
themselves, project by project as they see fit. Does the description of
the roles of the various lead agencies adequately communicate their
respective responsibilities, authorities, and limitations? Is the
division of labor, responsibility, and authority appropriate?
4. Methodologies for project analyses. Is the process for involving
participating agencies in the development of methodologies adequate?
Will it serve to minimize late-in-the-process methodological debates
between transportation agencies and resource agencies?
5. Coordination with participating agencies. Does the proposed
guidance present the required coordination with participating agencies,
including the development of a schedule and its resulting implications,
in sufficient detail? Should changes in the schedule require
coordination with all participating agencies or just with the
cooperating agencies, as stated in SAFETEA-LU?
The FTA and FHWA will respond to comments on the guidance generated
by this Notice in a second Federal Register notice to be published
after the close of the comment period. That second notice will also
announce the availability of the revised Section 6002 guidance that
reflects the changes implemented as a result of comments received. In
the meantime, the proposed guidance provides the current FHWA and FTA
interpretation of Section 6002, the requirements of which became
effective on August 10, 2005, the date of SAFETEA-LU's enactment.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144; 49
U.S.C. 5334; 23 U.S.C. 139; 49 CFR 1.48; 49 CFR 1.51.
Issued on: June 23, 2006.
Sandra K. Bushue,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
J. Richard Capka,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-10217 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
