Program Guidance for Metropolitan Planning Program and State Planning and Research Program Grants: Final Circular, 42898-42901 [E8-16825]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42898
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
C. Chapter III—State Planning and
Research Program
D. Chapter IV—Consolidated Planning
Grants (CPG)
E. Chapter V—Application Instructions
F. Appendices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket No. FTA–2007–29126]
Program Guidance for Metropolitan
Planning Program and State Planning
and Research Program Grants: Final
Circular
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final
Circular.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) has placed in the
docket and on its Web site final
guidance in the form of a circular on
Metropolitan Planning and State
Planning and Research Program Grants.
The final circular revises and combines
into one document the contents of
previous Circular 8100.1B for the
Metropolitan Planning Program (MPP)
and previous Circular 8200.1 the State
Planning and Research Program (SPRP).
The final circular also provides
information on Consolidated Planning
Grants (CPG) between FTA and the
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA).
DATES:
Effective Date: September 1,
2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Victor Austin, Office of Planning and
Environment (TPE), Federal Transit
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
phone: 202–366–2996, or e-mail
victor.austin@dot.gov. Legal questions
may be addressed to Christopher Van
Wyk, Office of Chief Counsel (TCC),
Federal Transit Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590, phone: 202–366–1733, or email, christopher.vanwyk@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Circular
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
You may download the circular from
the Federal government’s electronic
docket at https://www.regulations.gov.
You may also download an electronic
copy of the circular from FTA’s Web site
at https://www.fta.dot.gov. Paper copies
of the circular may be obtained by
calling FTA’s Administrative Services
Help Desk at 202–366–4865.
Table of Contents
I. Overview
II. Summary of and Response to Comments
A. Chapter I—Introduction and
Background
B. Chapter II—Metropolitan Planning
Program
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
I. Overview
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub.
L. 109–59, Aug. 10, 2005) updated
Chapter 53 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code
with new requirements for metropolitan
and statewide planning (49 U.S.C. 5303,
5304). On February 14, 2007, FTA and
FHWA jointly published a final rule,
‘‘Statewide Transportation Planning;
Metropolitan Transportation Planning,’’
updating 23 CFR parts 450 and 500 and
49 CFR part 613 to reflect the new
provisions enacted by SAFETEA–LU (72
FR 7224, Feb. 14, 2007). The new
regulations govern the work performed
under the Metropolitan Planning
Program (MPP) (23 CFR part 450) and
the State Planning and Research
Program (SPRP) (23 CFR part 420).
The rulemaking process included
extensive public outreach conducted
jointly by FTA and FHWA. This
involved publication of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
Register and a 90-day comment period
during which over 150 comments were
submitted to the docket. This effort was
supported by six public outreach
sessions, two national telecasts on the
Internet, and a series of informational
sessions in conjunction with various
transportation stakeholder association
events, including the Association of
State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), the
National Association of Regional
Councils (NARC), the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(AMPO) and State DOTs.
Although SAFETEA–LU made several
changes to the planning process, the
legislation did not make substantive
changes to the eligibility for and
processes of the MPP. SAFETEA–LU
did change the funding eligibility of the
SPRP to include only funds from 49
U.S.C. 5305, 5315, and 5322. Thus,
funding activities under Sections 5312
and 5317, allowable under the previous
legislation for SPRP, are no longer
eligible activities.
SAFETEA–LU also unified the MPP
and SPRP programs under the same
section in 49 U.S.C. 5305. Prior to
SAFETEA–LU, program eligibility and
criteria for the MPP could be found in
49 U.S.C. 5303(g), but program
eligibility and criteria for the SPRP was
found in 49 U.S.C. 5313(b). In addition,
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SAFETEA–LU restricts the use of
planning funds under both the MPP and
SPRP to the States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico and places
responsibilities for the funds to these
entities. The final circular adds
information on the Consolidated
Planning Grants (CPG), a program
administered by FTA and FHWA.
FTA reserves the right to update this
circular due to changes in other revised
or new guidance and regulations that
undergo notice and comment, without
further notice and comment on this
circular.
II. Summary of and Response to
Comments
The FTA circulars that previously
covered Metropolitan Planning (Circular
8100.1B) and State Planning and
Research Programs (Circular 8200.1)
were last updated in 1996 and 2001,
respectively. Although SAFETEA–LU
did not make substantive changes to the
eligibilities and procedures for funding
under the Metropolitan Planning and
State Planning and Research Program,
FTA believes it is necessary to update
the circulars that apply to the above
programs so that they reflect the new
and revised planning provisions in law
and subsequent regulations.
A. Chapter I—Introduction and
Background
This introductory chapter is a general
overview of what FTA plans to include
in all the new and revised program
circulars for the orientation of readers
new to FTA programs. Chapter I also
includes definitions and a history of
FTA’s planning programs.
One commenter suggested that there
be further public notice and comment if
FTA amends or updates this circular
due to changes in other circulars or
regulations that undergo notice and
comment. FTA disagrees. When the
revision of a circular or regulation
requires an opportunity for notice and
comment, there is no need to satisfy that
requirement again just to update a
reference to that revised document in
this circular. FTA has clarified that
statement, however, in the text of this
notice and in the final circular itself.
Another comment stated that FTA
should adopt the Bureau of Census
abbreviation of Urbanized Area and use
the abbreviation ‘‘UA’’ rather than
‘‘UZA.’’ Upon careful consideration,
FTA has determined that this change
should not be made in order to preserve
consistency with references made in
other FTA circulars and documents.
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
B. Chapter II—Metropolitan Planning
Program
This chapter replaces the former
Chapter II—‘‘Eligibility,’’ in previous
Circular 8100.1A and consolidates it
with Chapter I—‘‘General Overview,’’
Chapter II—‘‘Eligibility,’’ Chapter III—
‘‘Metropolitan Planning and Assistance:
Formula and Notification,’’ Chapter
IV—‘‘Unified Planning Work Program,’’
Chapter V—‘‘Application Instructions,’’
Chapter VII—‘‘Grant Agreement,’’ and
Chapter VIII—‘‘State Management,’’ of
the previous Circular 8100.1A, with
minor updates. This new consolidated
chapter provides an overview of the
entire MPP program with regard to its
statutory authority and program goals. It
defines the role of the individual States,
metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs), and FTA, and it explains the
program’s relationship to other FTAfunded programs. The chapter also
provides information on eligible
planning activities, steps required in
developing a Unified Planning Work
Program (UPWP), the MPP assistance
formula and notification, the grant
agreement, and the administration of
MPP grants.
One commenter asked that the words
‘‘engineer’’ and ‘‘design’’ be eliminated
from the Program Overview section
where the circular discusses the
program and projects available for grant
assistance. Because FTA’s use of these
terms is taken from statutory language
in 49 U.S.C. 5305, it is appropriate for
FTA to reference them here. FTA
noticed that through an oversight that it
removed language from the previous
circulars on Project Task Budget, Local
Share, and Cost Allocation Plan/Indirect
Costs. FTA has added this language
back into the final circular.
One comment asked that the circular
address the relationship of the MPO and
transit operators when there are several
designated recipients (DRs). Because the
focus of this circular is on the MPP and
SPRP funding programs, only brief
mention is made of the role of the DR
under FTA’s Section 5307 program
relative to the role of the MPO in
preparing the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). More
detailed discussion of the roles and
responsibilities of DRs under the
Section 5307 program is more
appropriately provided in FTA Circular
9030.1C, which focuses on the Section
5307 program. FTA Circular 9030.1C is
undergoing review, and FTA will
consider the above comment in that
effort.
Another comment suggested that FTA
clarify that UZAs with a population
over 200,000 are designated as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Transportation Management Areas
(TMAs) in the section ‘‘Relationship to
Other DOT Programs under Urbanized
Area Formula Program.’’ FTA agrees
with this comment and will add the
abbreviation ‘‘TMAs’’ in the above
referenced section.
One commenter suggested that there
should be a system in place to better
define which MPO or agency has
responsibility for a particular
metropolitan planning area (MPA) in
situations where geographic boundaries
of MPAs cross State lines. FTA notes the
planning regulations already address
this issue at 23 CFR 450.312
(‘‘Metropolitan planning area
boundaries’’). Thus, there is no need to
provide resolution of this issue in the
circular.
One commenter stated that MPOs
should not be responsible for
conducting any of the system planning
and corridor-level alternative analyses
for specific transit projects. FTA has
addressed this issue by regulation at 23
CFR 450.318. That regulatory section
allows, but does not require, MPOs,
States, or public transportation
operators to undertake a multimodal,
system-level corridor or subarea
planning study as part of the
metropolitan transportation planning
process. Planning within an MPA is a
collaborative, coordinated process.
Determinations of individual agency
responsibilities in conducting systems
planning and alternative analysis
studies are local decisions within the
bounds of the statutory and regulatory
provisions on planning.
One commenter stated that MPOs
should not be directly responsible for
safety, security, and emergency
transportation and evacuation planning.
This comment is outside the scope of
this circular, which only makes these
types of planning activities eligible for
Federal financial assistance, rather than
setting forth the MPOs’ responsibilities
in these areas. FTA has delineated the
role of MPOs in safety and security
planning in FTA’s planning regulations
at 23 CFR part 450. Pursuant to those
regulations, MPOs are required to
address safety and security through the
metropolitan transportation planning
process.
One commenter stated that the
information required for a UPWP and
Simplified Statement of Work (SOW)
should be consistent and should contain
some detailed information about costs,
timeframes, and objectives of the
proposed projects. The requirements for
the UPWP for TMAs and optional SOWs
in non-TMAs are already described in
the regulations at 23 CFR Part 450, but
for purposes of clarity, FTA has
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42899
expanded the description in the circular
to incorporate language taken directly
from the regulations.
To lessen reporting the burden, one
commenter stated that the sentence,
‘‘Additionally, the UPWP should list the
accomplishments from the previous
fiscal year,’’ should be deleted from the
UPWP section of the circular. FTA
supports the suggestion and has deleted
that sentence because progress reports
already are required under terms of the
grant agreement for receiving MPP
funds, per FTA Circular 5010.1C, as
referenced in Section 7, Administration
of MPP Grants.
FTA received six comments on MPP
Assistance Formula and Notification. In
general, three of the comments asked for
more information and clarification on
the formula allocation for MPP
assistance. In response, FTA refers these
three commenters to FTA’ annual
Federal Register notice,
‘‘Apportionments and Allocations,’’
which reports the apportionment of
both basic and supplemental MPP
funding among the States. FTA’s most
recent notice, ‘‘FTA Fiscal Year 2008
Apportionments and Allocations and
Program Information; Notice’’ (73 FR
4958, Jan. 28, 2008) describes Fiscal
Year 2008 funding. The apportionment
formula is further addressed by 49
U.S.C. 5305. FTA will add the following
clarification to the section in the
circular on supplemental MPP
assistance: ‘‘FTA has determined that
only States that have one or more UZAs
with a population greater than one
million in each are eligible to receive
supplemental MPP assistance.’’ The
responsibility for sub-allocating the
entire amount of MPP funds is placed at
the local level. Section 5305(d)(2) of
Title 49, U.S. Code states that each State
must allocate its MPP assistance
consistent with the formula developed
by the State in cooperation with its
MPOs and approved by FTA. More
information may be obtained from the
State representatives in the State(s) of
interest.
The fourth comment on the MPP
asked that the sentence in the section on
MPP ‘‘Authorization’’ be expanded to
add the phrase: ‘‘and 17.28 percent for
statewide planning’’ to include the
formula for the SPRP in the same
section as the as the MPP. To this, the
commenter is referred to the statutory
formula mentioned in Chapter III on
SPRP. The focus of Chapter III is on the
SPRP, and it appropriately addresses the
formula allocation (17.28 percent) for
this program; Chapter II focuses
primarily on the MPP.
The fifth comment on the MPP asked
that the circular clarify that the State is
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
42900
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
the grantee and that the MPO is the
subrecipient. FTA agrees, and the
language has been revised to refer to the
State as both DR and grantee for the
MPP and SPRP.
The sixth comment on the MPP stated
that a sentence in the section on third
party contracts was unclear. FTA agrees
with the commenter and, in response,
has rewritten the sentence in question
exactly as suggested by the commenter:
‘‘In the case of the MPP, the
procurement, execution, audit and
closing of third party contracts are both
MPO and State responsibilities.’’
One comment on the administration
of MPP grants stated that the planning
grants should not be closed out solely
due to the amount of time a project is
inactive, but rather should also consider
factors that may have stalled progress.
FTA does not agree that the current
process for closing out planning grants
is based solely on the amount of time a
project is inactive. The guidelines
established by FTA for grant close-out
does provide flexibility for the MPO to
complete the planning work elements
and activities in a reasonable timeframe.
The final circular continues this
flexibility by allowing the State and
MPO to specify a reasonable amount of
time to complete planning work
elements and activities.
Finally, as a result of continuing
internal staff review and discussion that
took place during the comment period,
FTA has decided to include an explicit
provision enacted in SAFETEA–LU that
requires States to allocate MPP ‘‘Basic
Assistance’’ to MPOs within 30 days of
apportionment. The statutory language
has been included verbatim.
C. Chapter III—Statewide Planning and
Research Program (SPRP)
This chapter replaces Chapter III—
‘‘Metropolitan Planning and Assistance:
Formula and Notification,’’ in previous
Circular 8100.1A. This new chapter
consists of information found in Chapter
II—‘‘State Planning and Research:
Formula and Notification,’’ Chapter
IV—‘‘State Planning,’’ Chapter V—
‘‘Training Activities,’’ and Chapter VII—
‘‘Human Resource Activities’’ of
previous Circular 8200.1, with some
minor updates. The new chapter
provides an overview of the SPRP
program in terms of its statutory
authority and program goals, and it
explains the program’s relationship to
and coordination with other FTAfunded programs. The chapter also
defines the role of the individual States
and FTA, and provides information on
eligible grant activities, SPRP assistance
formula and notification, and State
planning activities.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
One commenter stated that it is
unclear whether a change in the
Governor of a State would also result in
the change of the State recipient of
SPRP funds. The final circular keeps the
same language from the previous
circular, which states, ‘‘The Governor of
each State must designate a State
recipient for its SPRP funds.’’ FTA
believes the above language is clear and
that the authority of the Governor to
designate a State recipient carries
forward to newly installed Governors
when they take office.
One comment suggested that FTA add
a definition for ‘‘youth’’ in the section
‘‘Relationship to the Locally Developed
Coordinated Public Transit Human
Services Transportation Plan.’’ FTA has
slightly revised this section to more
closely track the applicable statutory
provisions; as a result, the word
‘‘youth’’ is no longer used in this
section.
D. Chapter IV—Consolidated Planning
Grants (CPG)
This new chapter, which provides
information on the CPG, a program
administered by FTA and FHWA,
replaces the former Chapter IV—
‘‘Unified Planning Work Program,’’ in
previous Circular 8100.1B. The CPG
program allows FTA and FHWA
funding that supports metropolitan and
statewide transportation planning to be
combined into a single consolidated
grant. This program fosters a
cooperative effort between the Federal
agencies and the participating States to
streamline the delivery of their planning
programs by providing the flexibility to
transfer the planning funds to either
FTA or FHWA for processing. States
electing to use the CPG programs must
consolidate grants for administration
under either FTA or FHWA.
There was one comment that stated
that the consolidation process of the
CPG program might be infeasible and
difficult to manage for transit or
highway-only UPWP tasks. The
comment also requested further
clarification on the CPG process. FTA
notices that the CPG has been offered for
the past 11 years to States and MPOs as
an optional program for combining FTA
and FHWA planning funds. Since 1996,
the CPG Program has been listed in the
Federal Register notice,
‘‘Apportionments and Allocations and
Program Information’’ (73 FR 4958, Jan.
28, 2008). The FHWA’s July 19, 2007,
Memorandum, ‘‘Information: Fund
Transfers to Other Agencies and Among
Title 23 Programs,’’ available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/
policy/fundtrans20070719.htm, outlines
provisions to consolidate processes and
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
procedures for transfers between FHWA
and FTA.
One comment sought clarification on
the length of time required for
participation in the CPG program. FTA’s
response is that there is no required
timeframe for participation in the CPG
program.
Another comment asked whether all
MPOs in a State must participate in the
CPG program and whether MPOs can go
back to separate grants at a later time.
FTA wants to clarify that participation
by MPOs in the CPG program is
voluntary. Furthermore, MPOs can go
back to a separate grant system if they
later decide that they no longer want to
participate in the CPG program.
One comment asked for clarification
on what activities are eligible and
whether transit projects are eligible if
FTA funds are consolidated in FHWA.
To clarify, any project eligible under the
UPWP would remain eligible if funds
are consolidated in FHWA, including
any transit projects listed in the UPWP.
Another comment asked whether
FHWA would administer the entire CPG
program and asked what role FTA
would play. The CPG program is a
cooperative effort between FTA and
FHWA to streamline the delivery of
their planning programs’ resources. The
intent is not to have FHWA or FTA as
the sole manager of the CPG program.
The designated ‘‘lead agency’’ will have
day-to-day responsibility for grant
administration (e.g., work program
changes, allowable cost determination,
and audit processing), but the lead
agency will coordinate with and solicit
input from the other agency on all
matters of policy and program
significance, such as work program
approval, progress reporting, and
satisfaction of work commitments for
grant closeout.
One commenter stated that the
benefits of the CPG program are unclear.
The commenter wanted to know who
makes the decision to consolidate
planning funds. The benefits and
explanation of the CPG program are
detailed in Chapter IV—‘‘Benefits of the
CPG to States and MPOs.’’ States and
MPOs decide together whether planning
funds will be consolidated and
administered either by FTA or FHWA.
One comment on the CPG program
stated that no matter which agency the
funds are consolidated under, there
should be no restrictions on the use of
the consolidated funds as long as they
are applied toward projects in the
UPWP. FTA does not support including
a blanket prohibition against restrictions
on the use of the consolidated planning
funds. Importantly, the multimodal
context and project eligibilities
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
associated with FTA’s MPP and SPRP
programs and FHWA’s metropolitan
planning (PL) and statewide planning
and research (SPR) programs do not
change when those funds are combined
under a CPG. Another comment stated
that the benefits of the CPG program
would streamline the planning process
for certain tasks and added that neither
transit nor highway projects should be
granted preferential treatment when
being considered for funding and that
all analyses be conducted on equal
terms. FTA agrees with this comment
and further notes that the metropolitan
and statewide planning work programs
developed through a cooperative
planning process will be accepted as the
grant application for both FTA and
FHWA planning funds under the CPG
program.
FTA received one comment on the
inequity that might occur given the long
lead time and extra scrutiny that occur
when funds are flexed to transit
agencies. This commenter appears to be
referring to the flexible funding
programs Surface Transportation
Program and Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program,
which are separate programs from the
CPG and have their own particular
requirements. The CPG program allows
the States and MPOs to combine FTA
metropolitan or statewide planning
funds with FHWA planning funds.
Comments on the flexible funding
programs are outside the scope of this
circular.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
E. Chapter V—Application Instructions
This chapter updates Chapter V—
‘‘Application Instructions,’’ and Chapter
VI—‘‘Certifications and Assurances,’’ in
previous Circular 8100.1A and merges
them into one chapter. While providing
minor updates to information on the
MPP program, this chapter also
incorporates information, with minor
updates, from Chapter III—‘‘Application
Instructions,’’ of previous Circular
8200.1. This section details the
application process of MPOs and States
that apply for and receive funds from
MPP and SPRP grants. This section also
discusses the certifications and
assurances and their location within the
FTA’s Transportation Electronic Award
and Management (TEAM) system, a
streamlined electronic interface between
grant applicants, recipients, and FTA
that allows complete electronic grant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
application submission, review,
approval, and management.
FTA received one comment on the
inconsistency in submitting an
application through TEAM and the
requirement for original signatures. FTA
agrees with this comment and has
revised this section to reflect the
electronic submittal of applications,
deleting the requirement for original
signatures.
One comment stated that
certifications pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
Section 5333(b) (commonly referred to
as Section 13(c)) are not required for
planning grants and that discussion of
the Department of Labor certifications
and participation should be deleted.
FTA agrees with this comment and has
deleted the reference to Section 13(c)
certifications and DOL participation.
F. Appendices
Appendices A through C of Circular
8100.1A have been relabeled and
reorganized. FTA is also adding an
index of common terms used
throughout the circular following
Appendix D. The new Appendix A
contains an outline of a UPWP
document and replaces the former
‘‘Definitions’’ section, which has been
moved to Chapter I. Appendix B is a
revised ‘‘MPP Sample Project Budget,’’
which was formerly located in
Appendix B of previous Circular
8100.1B, as well as a revised ‘‘SPRP
Sample Project Budget,’’ which was
formerly located in Appendix B of
previous Circular 8200.1. Appendix C
contains references to other sources that
are relevant to the planning programs.
Appendix D contains FTA regional and
metropolitan contact information.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 17th day of
July, 2008.
James S. Simpson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–16825 Filed 7–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety;
Notice of Applications for Modification
of Special Permit
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42901
List of Applications for
Modification of Special Permit.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special
permits from the Department of
Transportation’s Hazardous Material
Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart
B), notice is hereby given that the Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety has
received the application described
herein. This notice is abbreviated to
expedite docketing and public notice.
Because the sections affected, modes of
transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier
Federal Register publications, they are
not repeated here. Request of
modifications of special permits (e.g. to
provide for additional hazardous
materials, packaging design changes,
additional mode of transportation, etc.)
are described in footnotes to the
application number. Application
numbers with the suffix ‘‘M’’ denote a
modification request. Their applications
have been separated from the new
application for special permits to
facilitate processing.
Comments must be received on
or before August 7, 2008.
Address Comments to: Record Center,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the
application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of
comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing
the special permit number.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the applications are available
for inspection in the Records Center,
East Building, PHH–30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC or at
https://dms.dot.gov.
This notice of receipt of applications
for modification of special permits is
published in accordance with Part 107
of the Federal hazardous materials
transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b);
49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10,
2008.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials,
Special Permits and Approvals.
Modification Special Permits
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42898-42901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16825]
[[Page 42898]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket No. FTA-2007-29126]
Program Guidance for Metropolitan Planning Program and State
Planning and Research Program Grants: Final Circular
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Circular.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has placed in the
docket and on its Web site final guidance in the form of a circular on
Metropolitan Planning and State Planning and Research Program Grants.
The final circular revises and combines into one document the contents
of previous Circular 8100.1B for the Metropolitan Planning Program
(MPP) and previous Circular 8200.1 the State Planning and Research
Program (SPRP). The final circular also provides information on
Consolidated Planning Grants (CPG) between FTA and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA).
DATES: Effective Date: September 1, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor Austin, Office of Planning and
Environment (TPE), Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, phone: 202-366-2996, or e-mail
victor.austin@dot.gov. Legal questions may be addressed to Christopher
Van Wyk, Office of Chief Counsel (TCC), Federal Transit Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, phone: 202-366-1733, or e-mail,
christopher.vanwyk@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Circular
You may download the circular from the Federal government's
electronic docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may also download
an electronic copy of the circular from FTA's Web site at https://
www.fta.dot.gov. Paper copies of the circular may be obtained by
calling FTA's Administrative Services Help Desk at 202-366-4865.
Table of Contents
I. Overview
II. Summary of and Response to Comments
A. Chapter I--Introduction and Background
B. Chapter II--Metropolitan Planning Program
C. Chapter III--State Planning and Research Program
D. Chapter IV--Consolidated Planning Grants (CPG)
E. Chapter V--Application Instructions
F. Appendices
I. Overview
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, Aug. 10, 2005)
updated Chapter 53 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code with new requirements
for metropolitan and statewide planning (49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304). On
February 14, 2007, FTA and FHWA jointly published a final rule,
``Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation
Planning,'' updating 23 CFR parts 450 and 500 and 49 CFR part 613 to
reflect the new provisions enacted by SAFETEA-LU (72 FR 7224, Feb. 14,
2007). The new regulations govern the work performed under the
Metropolitan Planning Program (MPP) (23 CFR part 450) and the State
Planning and Research Program (SPRP) (23 CFR part 420).
The rulemaking process included extensive public outreach conducted
jointly by FTA and FHWA. This involved publication of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register and a 90-day comment period
during which over 150 comments were submitted to the docket. This
effort was supported by six public outreach sessions, two national
telecasts on the Internet, and a series of informational sessions in
conjunction with various transportation stakeholder association events,
including the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the
National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) and State DOTs.
Although SAFETEA-LU made several changes to the planning process,
the legislation did not make substantive changes to the eligibility for
and processes of the MPP. SAFETEA-LU did change the funding eligibility
of the SPRP to include only funds from 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5315, and 5322.
Thus, funding activities under Sections 5312 and 5317, allowable under
the previous legislation for SPRP, are no longer eligible activities.
SAFETEA-LU also unified the MPP and SPRP programs under the same
section in 49 U.S.C. 5305. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, program eligibility and
criteria for the MPP could be found in 49 U.S.C. 5303(g), but program
eligibility and criteria for the SPRP was found in 49 U.S.C. 5313(b).
In addition, SAFETEA-LU restricts the use of planning funds under both
the MPP and SPRP to the States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico and places responsibilities for the funds to these entities. The
final circular adds information on the Consolidated Planning Grants
(CPG), a program administered by FTA and FHWA.
FTA reserves the right to update this circular due to changes in
other revised or new guidance and regulations that undergo notice and
comment, without further notice and comment on this circular.
II. Summary of and Response to Comments
The FTA circulars that previously covered Metropolitan Planning
(Circular 8100.1B) and State Planning and Research Programs (Circular
8200.1) were last updated in 1996 and 2001, respectively. Although
SAFETEA-LU did not make substantive changes to the eligibilities and
procedures for funding under the Metropolitan Planning and State
Planning and Research Program, FTA believes it is necessary to update
the circulars that apply to the above programs so that they reflect the
new and revised planning provisions in law and subsequent regulations.
A. Chapter I--Introduction and Background
This introductory chapter is a general overview of what FTA plans
to include in all the new and revised program circulars for the
orientation of readers new to FTA programs. Chapter I also includes
definitions and a history of FTA's planning programs.
One commenter suggested that there be further public notice and
comment if FTA amends or updates this circular due to changes in other
circulars or regulations that undergo notice and comment. FTA
disagrees. When the revision of a circular or regulation requires an
opportunity for notice and comment, there is no need to satisfy that
requirement again just to update a reference to that revised document
in this circular. FTA has clarified that statement, however, in the
text of this notice and in the final circular itself.
Another comment stated that FTA should adopt the Bureau of Census
abbreviation of Urbanized Area and use the abbreviation ``UA'' rather
than ``UZA.'' Upon careful consideration, FTA has determined that this
change should not be made in order to preserve consistency with
references made in other FTA circulars and documents.
[[Page 42899]]
B. Chapter II--Metropolitan Planning Program
This chapter replaces the former Chapter II--``Eligibility,'' in
previous Circular 8100.1A and consolidates it with Chapter I--``General
Overview,'' Chapter II--``Eligibility,'' Chapter III--``Metropolitan
Planning and Assistance: Formula and Notification,'' Chapter IV--
``Unified Planning Work Program,'' Chapter V--``Application
Instructions,'' Chapter VII--``Grant Agreement,'' and Chapter VIII--
``State Management,'' of the previous Circular 8100.1A, with minor
updates. This new consolidated chapter provides an overview of the
entire MPP program with regard to its statutory authority and program
goals. It defines the role of the individual States, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs), and FTA, and it explains the program's
relationship to other FTA-funded programs. The chapter also provides
information on eligible planning activities, steps required in
developing a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the MPP assistance
formula and notification, the grant agreement, and the administration
of MPP grants.
One commenter asked that the words ``engineer'' and ``design'' be
eliminated from the Program Overview section where the circular
discusses the program and projects available for grant assistance.
Because FTA's use of these terms is taken from statutory language in 49
U.S.C. 5305, it is appropriate for FTA to reference them here. FTA
noticed that through an oversight that it removed language from the
previous circulars on Project Task Budget, Local Share, and Cost
Allocation Plan/Indirect Costs. FTA has added this language back into
the final circular.
One comment asked that the circular address the relationship of the
MPO and transit operators when there are several designated recipients
(DRs). Because the focus of this circular is on the MPP and SPRP
funding programs, only brief mention is made of the role of the DR
under FTA's Section 5307 program relative to the role of the MPO in
preparing the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). More detailed
discussion of the roles and responsibilities of DRs under the Section
5307 program is more appropriately provided in FTA Circular 9030.1C,
which focuses on the Section 5307 program. FTA Circular 9030.1C is
undergoing review, and FTA will consider the above comment in that
effort.
Another comment suggested that FTA clarify that UZAs with a
population over 200,000 are designated as Transportation Management
Areas (TMAs) in the section ``Relationship to Other DOT Programs under
Urbanized Area Formula Program.'' FTA agrees with this comment and will
add the abbreviation ``TMAs'' in the above referenced section.
One commenter suggested that there should be a system in place to
better define which MPO or agency has responsibility for a particular
metropolitan planning area (MPA) in situations where geographic
boundaries of MPAs cross State lines. FTA notes the planning
regulations already address this issue at 23 CFR 450.312
(``Metropolitan planning area boundaries''). Thus, there is no need to
provide resolution of this issue in the circular.
One commenter stated that MPOs should not be responsible for
conducting any of the system planning and corridor-level alternative
analyses for specific transit projects. FTA has addressed this issue by
regulation at 23 CFR 450.318. That regulatory section allows, but does
not require, MPOs, States, or public transportation operators to
undertake a multimodal, system-level corridor or subarea planning study
as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process. Planning
within an MPA is a collaborative, coordinated process. Determinations
of individual agency responsibilities in conducting systems planning
and alternative analysis studies are local decisions within the bounds
of the statutory and regulatory provisions on planning.
One commenter stated that MPOs should not be directly responsible
for safety, security, and emergency transportation and evacuation
planning. This comment is outside the scope of this circular, which
only makes these types of planning activities eligible for Federal
financial assistance, rather than setting forth the MPOs'
responsibilities in these areas. FTA has delineated the role of MPOs in
safety and security planning in FTA's planning regulations at 23 CFR
part 450. Pursuant to those regulations, MPOs are required to address
safety and security through the metropolitan transportation planning
process.
One commenter stated that the information required for a UPWP and
Simplified Statement of Work (SOW) should be consistent and should
contain some detailed information about costs, timeframes, and
objectives of the proposed projects. The requirements for the UPWP for
TMAs and optional SOWs in non-TMAs are already described in the
regulations at 23 CFR Part 450, but for purposes of clarity, FTA has
expanded the description in the circular to incorporate language taken
directly from the regulations.
To lessen reporting the burden, one commenter stated that the
sentence, ``Additionally, the UPWP should list the accomplishments from
the previous fiscal year,'' should be deleted from the UPWP section of
the circular. FTA supports the suggestion and has deleted that sentence
because progress reports already are required under terms of the grant
agreement for receiving MPP funds, per FTA Circular 5010.1C, as
referenced in Section 7, Administration of MPP Grants.
FTA received six comments on MPP Assistance Formula and
Notification. In general, three of the comments asked for more
information and clarification on the formula allocation for MPP
assistance. In response, FTA refers these three commenters to FTA'
annual Federal Register notice, ``Apportionments and Allocations,''
which reports the apportionment of both basic and supplemental MPP
funding among the States. FTA's most recent notice, ``FTA Fiscal Year
2008 Apportionments and Allocations and Program Information; Notice''
(73 FR 4958, Jan. 28, 2008) describes Fiscal Year 2008 funding. The
apportionment formula is further addressed by 49 U.S.C. 5305. FTA will
add the following clarification to the section in the circular on
supplemental MPP assistance: ``FTA has determined that only States that
have one or more UZAs with a population greater than one million in
each are eligible to receive supplemental MPP assistance.'' The
responsibility for sub-allocating the entire amount of MPP funds is
placed at the local level. Section 5305(d)(2) of Title 49, U.S. Code
states that each State must allocate its MPP assistance consistent with
the formula developed by the State in cooperation with its MPOs and
approved by FTA. More information may be obtained from the State
representatives in the State(s) of interest.
The fourth comment on the MPP asked that the sentence in the
section on MPP ``Authorization'' be expanded to add the phrase: ``and
17.28 percent for statewide planning'' to include the formula for the
SPRP in the same section as the as the MPP. To this, the commenter is
referred to the statutory formula mentioned in Chapter III on SPRP. The
focus of Chapter III is on the SPRP, and it appropriately addresses the
formula allocation (17.28 percent) for this program; Chapter II focuses
primarily on the MPP.
The fifth comment on the MPP asked that the circular clarify that
the State is
[[Page 42900]]
the grantee and that the MPO is the subrecipient. FTA agrees, and the
language has been revised to refer to the State as both DR and grantee
for the MPP and SPRP.
The sixth comment on the MPP stated that a sentence in the section
on third party contracts was unclear. FTA agrees with the commenter
and, in response, has rewritten the sentence in question exactly as
suggested by the commenter: ``In the case of the MPP, the procurement,
execution, audit and closing of third party contracts are both MPO and
State responsibilities.''
One comment on the administration of MPP grants stated that the
planning grants should not be closed out solely due to the amount of
time a project is inactive, but rather should also consider factors
that may have stalled progress. FTA does not agree that the current
process for closing out planning grants is based solely on the amount
of time a project is inactive. The guidelines established by FTA for
grant close-out does provide flexibility for the MPO to complete the
planning work elements and activities in a reasonable timeframe. The
final circular continues this flexibility by allowing the State and MPO
to specify a reasonable amount of time to complete planning work
elements and activities.
Finally, as a result of continuing internal staff review and
discussion that took place during the comment period, FTA has decided
to include an explicit provision enacted in SAFETEA-LU that requires
States to allocate MPP ``Basic Assistance'' to MPOs within 30 days of
apportionment. The statutory language has been included verbatim.
C. Chapter III--Statewide Planning and Research Program (SPRP)
This chapter replaces Chapter III--``Metropolitan Planning and
Assistance: Formula and Notification,'' in previous Circular 8100.1A.
This new chapter consists of information found in Chapter II--``State
Planning and Research: Formula and Notification,'' Chapter IV--``State
Planning,'' Chapter V--``Training Activities,'' and Chapter VII--
``Human Resource Activities'' of previous Circular 8200.1, with some
minor updates. The new chapter provides an overview of the SPRP program
in terms of its statutory authority and program goals, and it explains
the program's relationship to and coordination with other FTA-funded
programs. The chapter also defines the role of the individual States
and FTA, and provides information on eligible grant activities, SPRP
assistance formula and notification, and State planning activities.
One commenter stated that it is unclear whether a change in the
Governor of a State would also result in the change of the State
recipient of SPRP funds. The final circular keeps the same language
from the previous circular, which states, ``The Governor of each State
must designate a State recipient for its SPRP funds.'' FTA believes the
above language is clear and that the authority of the Governor to
designate a State recipient carries forward to newly installed
Governors when they take office.
One comment suggested that FTA add a definition for ``youth'' in
the section ``Relationship to the Locally Developed Coordinated Public
Transit Human Services Transportation Plan.'' FTA has slightly revised
this section to more closely track the applicable statutory provisions;
as a result, the word ``youth'' is no longer used in this section.
D. Chapter IV--Consolidated Planning Grants (CPG)
This new chapter, which provides information on the CPG, a program
administered by FTA and FHWA, replaces the former Chapter IV--``Unified
Planning Work Program,'' in previous Circular 8100.1B. The CPG program
allows FTA and FHWA funding that supports metropolitan and statewide
transportation planning to be combined into a single consolidated
grant. This program fosters a cooperative effort between the Federal
agencies and the participating States to streamline the delivery of
their planning programs by providing the flexibility to transfer the
planning funds to either FTA or FHWA for processing. States electing to
use the CPG programs must consolidate grants for administration under
either FTA or FHWA.
There was one comment that stated that the consolidation process of
the CPG program might be infeasible and difficult to manage for transit
or highway-only UPWP tasks. The comment also requested further
clarification on the CPG process. FTA notices that the CPG has been
offered for the past 11 years to States and MPOs as an optional program
for combining FTA and FHWA planning funds. Since 1996, the CPG Program
has been listed in the Federal Register notice, ``Apportionments and
Allocations and Program Information'' (73 FR 4958, Jan. 28, 2008). The
FHWA's July 19, 2007, Memorandum, ``Information: Fund Transfers to
Other Agencies and Among Title 23 Programs,'' available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/fundtrans20070719.htm,
outlines provisions to consolidate processes and procedures for
transfers between FHWA and FTA.
One comment sought clarification on the length of time required for
participation in the CPG program. FTA's response is that there is no
required timeframe for participation in the CPG program.
Another comment asked whether all MPOs in a State must participate
in the CPG program and whether MPOs can go back to separate grants at a
later time. FTA wants to clarify that participation by MPOs in the CPG
program is voluntary. Furthermore, MPOs can go back to a separate grant
system if they later decide that they no longer want to participate in
the CPG program.
One comment asked for clarification on what activities are eligible
and whether transit projects are eligible if FTA funds are consolidated
in FHWA. To clarify, any project eligible under the UPWP would remain
eligible if funds are consolidated in FHWA, including any transit
projects listed in the UPWP.
Another comment asked whether FHWA would administer the entire CPG
program and asked what role FTA would play. The CPG program is a
cooperative effort between FTA and FHWA to streamline the delivery of
their planning programs' resources. The intent is not to have FHWA or
FTA as the sole manager of the CPG program. The designated ``lead
agency'' will have day-to-day responsibility for grant administration
(e.g., work program changes, allowable cost determination, and audit
processing), but the lead agency will coordinate with and solicit input
from the other agency on all matters of policy and program
significance, such as work program approval, progress reporting, and
satisfaction of work commitments for grant closeout.
One commenter stated that the benefits of the CPG program are
unclear. The commenter wanted to know who makes the decision to
consolidate planning funds. The benefits and explanation of the CPG
program are detailed in Chapter IV--``Benefits of the CPG to States and
MPOs.'' States and MPOs decide together whether planning funds will be
consolidated and administered either by FTA or FHWA.
One comment on the CPG program stated that no matter which agency
the funds are consolidated under, there should be no restrictions on
the use of the consolidated funds as long as they are applied toward
projects in the UPWP. FTA does not support including a blanket
prohibition against restrictions on the use of the consolidated
planning funds. Importantly, the multimodal context and project
eligibilities
[[Page 42901]]
associated with FTA's MPP and SPRP programs and FHWA's metropolitan
planning (PL) and statewide planning and research (SPR) programs do not
change when those funds are combined under a CPG. Another comment
stated that the benefits of the CPG program would streamline the
planning process for certain tasks and added that neither transit nor
highway projects should be granted preferential treatment when being
considered for funding and that all analyses be conducted on equal
terms. FTA agrees with this comment and further notes that the
metropolitan and statewide planning work programs developed through a
cooperative planning process will be accepted as the grant application
for both FTA and FHWA planning funds under the CPG program.
FTA received one comment on the inequity that might occur given the
long lead time and extra scrutiny that occur when funds are flexed to
transit agencies. This commenter appears to be referring to the
flexible funding programs Surface Transportation Program and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, which are separate
programs from the CPG and have their own particular requirements. The
CPG program allows the States and MPOs to combine FTA metropolitan or
statewide planning funds with FHWA planning funds. Comments on the
flexible funding programs are outside the scope of this circular.
E. Chapter V--Application Instructions
This chapter updates Chapter V--``Application Instructions,'' and
Chapter VI--``Certifications and Assurances,'' in previous Circular
8100.1A and merges them into one chapter. While providing minor updates
to information on the MPP program, this chapter also incorporates
information, with minor updates, from Chapter III--``Application
Instructions,'' of previous Circular 8200.1. This section details the
application process of MPOs and States that apply for and receive funds
from MPP and SPRP grants. This section also discusses the
certifications and assurances and their location within the FTA's
Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) system, a
streamlined electronic interface between grant applicants, recipients,
and FTA that allows complete electronic grant application submission,
review, approval, and management.
FTA received one comment on the inconsistency in submitting an
application through TEAM and the requirement for original signatures.
FTA agrees with this comment and has revised this section to reflect
the electronic submittal of applications, deleting the requirement for
original signatures.
One comment stated that certifications pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
Section 5333(b) (commonly referred to as Section 13(c)) are not
required for planning grants and that discussion of the Department of
Labor certifications and participation should be deleted. FTA agrees
with this comment and has deleted the reference to Section 13(c)
certifications and DOL participation.
F. Appendices
Appendices A through C of Circular 8100.1A have been relabeled and
reorganized. FTA is also adding an index of common terms used
throughout the circular following Appendix D. The new Appendix A
contains an outline of a UPWP document and replaces the former
``Definitions'' section, which has been moved to Chapter I. Appendix B
is a revised ``MPP Sample Project Budget,'' which was formerly located
in Appendix B of previous Circular 8100.1B, as well as a revised ``SPRP
Sample Project Budget,'' which was formerly located in Appendix B of
previous Circular 8200.1. Appendix C contains references to other
sources that are relevant to the planning programs. Appendix D contains
FTA regional and metropolitan contact information.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 17th day of July, 2008.
James S. Simpson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-16825 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
