Livability Initiative Under Special Experimental Project No. 14, 36467-36471 [2010-15438]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices
3. Land: Landscape and Scenic
Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 U.S.C.
319].
4. Wetlands and Water Resources:
Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C.
300(f)–300(j)(6)]; and Wetlands
Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m) and
133(b)(11)].
5. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act
[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section
1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act [16 U.S.C. 661–667(d)]; and
Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C.
703–712].
6. Historic and Cultural Resources:
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archaeological
and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C.
469–469c]; Archaeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979 [16 U.S.C. 470aa
et seq.]; and Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act [25
U.S.C. 3001–3013].
7. Social and Economic: Civil Rights
Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)–
2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy
Act [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209]; and The
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as
amended.
8. Hazardous Materials:
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act [42 U.S.C. 9601–9675]; Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986; and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)].
9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990
Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988
Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898
Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income
Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred
Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O.
13175 Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O.
11514 Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality; and E.O. 13112
Invasive Species.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
(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.)
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Issued on: June 21, 2010.
Cindy Vigue,
Director, State Programs, Federal Highway
Administration, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. 2010–15478 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2010–0027]
Livability Initiative Under Special
Experimental Project No. 14
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The FHWA is announcing a
livability initiative to harmonize and
coordinate the Federal-aid highway
program with grant-in-aid programs
administered by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Under this initiative, the
FHWA will utilize Special Experimental
Project No. 14 (SEP–14) to permit, on a
case-by-case basis, the application of
HUD requirements on Federal-aid
highway projects that may otherwise
conflict with Federal-aid highway
program requirements. One such
requirement is contained in HUD’s
Section 3 Program, the goal of which is
to provide training, employment and
contracting opportunities to low and
very low income persons residing
within the metropolitan area (or
nonmetropolitan county) in which the
project is located and businesses that
substantially employ such persons. The
purposes of this SEP–14 initiative is to
evaluate the contracting efficiencies and
impacts on competition in harmonizing
conflicting FHWA and HUD contracting
requirements, and to further the goals of
the DOT, HUD, and EPA partnership on
sustainable communities. This initiative
will not result in the diversion of
highway funds to housing projects. The
statutory funding eligibility
requirements must continue to be met in
order to use Federal-aid highway funds.
DATES: This new experimental project is
being initiated on June 25, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information: Mr. Gerald
Yakowenko, Office of Program
Administration (HIPA), (202) 366–1562.
For legal information: Mr. Michael
Harkins, Office of the Chief Counsel
(HCC–30), (202) 366–4928, Federal
Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
Interested parties may access the
comments received by FHWA by going
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36467
online and entering the following Web
address: https://www.regulations.gov,
which is available 24 hours each day,
365 days each year. Electronic
submission and retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help
section of the Web site.
An electronic copy of this document
may also be downloaded from the Office
of the Federal Register’s home page at
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register
and the Government Printing Office’s
Web page at https://www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
On March 30, 2010, the FHWA
published a notice (75 FR 15767)
regarding the FHWA’s proposal to
permit, on a case-by-case basis, the
application of HUD requirements on
Federal-aid highway projects that may
otherwise conflict with Federal-aid
highway program requirements, such as
HUD’s Section 3 Program that requires
employment opportunities be provided
to low and very low income persons
residing within the area in which the
project is located. This SEP–14 initiative
is being advanced by the FHWA in
order to evaluate the potential
efficiencies that may be realized by
harmonizing FHWA and HUD
contracting requirements for jointly
funded projects. Additionally, this
initiative furthers the June 16, 2009,
DOT, HUD, and EPA Interagency
Partnership for Sustainable
Communities. One of the goals of this
partnership is to better align DOT, HUD,
and EPA programs to encourage better
coordination and location efficiency in
housing and transportation choices.
More information on the partnership
can be found at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/and https://
www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/
index.html.
SEP–14
In 1988, a Transportation Research
Board (TRB) task force, comprised of
representatives from all segments of the
highway industry, was formed to
evaluate Innovative Contracting
Practices. This TRB task force requested
that the FHWA establish a project to
evaluate and validate certain findings of
the task force regarding innovative
contracting practices, which are
documented in Transportation Research
Circular Number 386, titled, ‘‘Innovative
Contracting Practices,’’ dated December
1991. In response, the FHWA initiated
Special Experimental Project No. 14
(SEP–14) pursuant to the authority
granted to the Secretary under 23 U.S.C.
502(a). (https://fhwa.dot.gov/
programadmin/contracts/021390.cfm).
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
36468
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices
The SEP–14 strives to identify,
evaluate, and document innovative
contracting practices that have the
potential to reduce the life cycle cost of
projects, while at the same time,
maintain product quality. Under SEP–
14, the FHWA has the flexibility to
experiment with innovative approaches
to contracting. However, SEP–14 does
not seek alternatives to the open
competitive bid process.
The innovative practices originally
approved for evaluation were: Costplus-time bidding, lane rental, designbuild contracting, and warranty clauses.
Forty-one States have used at least one
of the innovative practices under SEP–
14. Based on their collective
experiences, FHWA decided that costplus-time bidding, lane rental, and
warranty clauses were techniques
suitable for use as non-experimental,
operational practices and in 1995 these
were made regular Federal-aid
procedures. Additionally, design-build
contracting in the Federal-aid highway
program was originally conducted
under SEP–14 until Congress modified
23 U.S.C. 112 in section 1307 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century to permanently authorize the
use of this contracting method. The
SEP–14 continues to be used to test and
evaluate experimental contracting
practices.
Discussion of Comments
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Summary
On Tuesday, March 30, 2010, the
FHWA published a notice and requested
comment on a proposed contracting
approach to be evaluated under SEP–14.
Specifically, the contracting approach
proposed seeks to harmonize FHWA
and HUD contracting requirements by
permitting States to apply HUD’s local
hiring provisions, which are required by
HUD’s Section 3 Program as a condition
to using HUD’s Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding. The FHWA proposes to
advance this SEP–14 approach pursuant
to the DOT/HUD/EPA Sustainable
Communities Partnership.
The FHWA received 12 comments in
response to this notice. Of these
comments, nine were supportive (in
varying degrees), one was neutral, and
one was opposed. As a result of these
comments, only one change is
recommended for incorporation into the
final notice. This change comes from the
comment made by the National Housing
Law Project, who suggested that the
FHWA notify HUD whenever a SEP–14
application is made by a State DOT.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
Identification and Response to
Comments
The following identifies and
summarizes the major comments
submitted by all the commenters in
response to the March 30 notice, as well
as the FHWA response:
1. California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)
The Caltrans states that it would
support the proposed SEP–14 approach
if FHWA’s regulations are amended to
permit geographic preferences.
FHWA Response: The purpose of this
experiment is to evaluate the effects,
including impacts on competition, of
applying HUD contracting requirements
to FHWA projects. Once the FHWA
determines that enough data has been
obtained, the FHWA will consider to
what extent a change in the regulations
may be warranted.
2. Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PennDOT)
The PennDOT supports utilizing SEP–
14 to permit the use of HUD’s Section
3 Program on joint FHWA/HUD
projects. Doing so would enable both
PennDOT and the Pennsylvania
Department of Community and
Economic Development to maximize the
use of both agencies’ Federal dollars
while reducing the financial burden on
municipalities when undertaking these
projects. The PennDOT notes that they
have abandoned the use of CDBG funds
on two projects because of the
conflicting requirements between the
FHWA and HUD programs.
The PennDOT further notes an
additional conflict between FHWA and
HUD requirements. Specifically, the
FHWA applies a disadvantaged business
enterprise (DBE) program where there is
a single goal for all disadvantaged
businesses while HUD applies a
minority and woman owned business
enterprise (MBE/WBE) program where
there are separate goals for minority and
women owned businesses. The
PennDOT recommends the application
of the FHWA’s DBE program since the
FHWA would typically have the larger
financial interest in the project.
The PennDOT further recommends
that SEP–14 approval be granted for a
group or class of projects for
administrative convenience.
FHWA Response: The PennDOT
provides a good example of the type of
problem the FHWA intends to address
with this SEP–14 approach. However,
the FHWA is not proposing any
variations to the DBE program and does
not have authority to change HUD’s
MBE/WBE program. Since most
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
contractors would likely have
certifications for both DOT’s DBE
program and HUD’s MBE/WBE program,
the FHWA believes that both programs’
program can be consistently applied to
joint FHWA/HUD projects. Lastly, the
project or projects for which SEP–14
approval will be granted will be
determined by the scope of the State’s
work plan in which the State may
propose to use the SEP–14 approach for
one or more projects. However, the
FHWA does not believe that approval
should be granted for an entire class or
category of projects.
3. National Housing Conference (NHC)
The NHC supports the use of SEP–14
to reduce conflicts that would
jeopardize the application of HUD’s
Section 3 Program to joint FHWA/HUD
projects as well as the interest to
combine HUD and DOT funding to
advance the goals of the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities. The NHC
further agrees with the requirement for
States to address the degree to which
the project enhances livability and
sustainability in their work plans, but is
concerned with the omission of a
reference to the importance of affordable
housing in advancing livability and
sustainability. As such, NHC suggests
that the States address the following
question in their work plans: ‘‘Will the
project reduce families’ combined costs
for housing and transportation?’’
Additionally, NHC suggests asking the
States whether their transportation and
land use plans have been coordinated
with affordable housing activities.
FHWA Response: The FHWA
appreciates NHC’s comments and fully
supports the goals of the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities. However, the
FHWA declines to incorporate NHC’s
specific suggestions. While affordable
housing is part of the overall goal of the
Partnership for Sustainable
Communities, the FHWA’s efforts under
the Partnership must be consistent with
the agency’s mission, which is to
administer the Federal-aid highway
program. Since this SEP–14 approach
only concerns the administration of the
Federal-aid highway program,
requirements and data related to
affordable housing would be beyond the
scope of the experiment.
4. Transportation Equity Network (TEN)
The TEN strongly supports the use of
SEP–14 to harmonize conflicting FHWA
and HUD requirements. However, TEN
suggests that the Federal-aid highway
program provide training and
employment opportunities to low and
very low income persons residing
within the metropolitan area in which
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
the project is located. The TEN also
suggests strengthening the criteria for
evaluating how projects enhance
livability, such as increasing economic
development and promoting access to
job opportunities.
FHWA Response: The Federal-aid
highway program already includes an
On-the-Job Training Program under
which State DOTs are required to offer
apprenticeship and training programs
targeted to move women, minorities,
and socially and economically
disadvantaged persons into journey
level positions, and an On-the-Job
Training and Supportive Services
Program under which $10,000,000 every
year is made available for training. For
more information, please see: https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/eeo.htm.
Also, the FHWA declines to expand the
livability criteria as suggested by TEN.
The FHWA believes the livability
criteria set out in the notice are
sufficient for purposes of the SEP–14
approach to be conducted.
5. American Federation of Labor—
Congress of Industrial Organizations,
Building and Construction Trades
Department (BCTD)
The BCTD supports the SEP–14
approach and the goals established for
the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities. However, BCTD does not
feel that SEP–14 is necessary to allow
application of HUD’s Section 3 Program
requirements. Rather, BCTD urges the
Secretary to amend the regulations. The
BCTD also asserts that the FHWA
routinely denies requests to use project
labor agreements (PLAs) because union
hiring hall procedures, which confer a
geographic preference for employment,
are contrary to FHWA requirements.
FHWA Response: The FHWA has long
maintained that local hiring preferences
are inconsistent with the requirement in
23 U.S.C. 112 to require such plans and
specifications and methods of bidding
as are effective in securing competition.
With this SEP–14 approach, the FHWA
is interested in examining the potential
impacts on competition and whether
competition, cost, and overall project
efficiency will be enhanced by allowing
the HUD funded work and FHWA
funded work to be advertised and
awarded as part of a single contract.
Once we determine that we have
enough data, we will consider to what
extent a change in the regulations may
be warranted.
6. National Housing Law Project (NHLP)
The NHLP is generally supportive the
SEP–14 approach. The NHLP submitted
lengthy comments, but they are
generally concerned with ensuring that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
HUD’s Section 3 requirements are met
and further enhance the livability
criteria of the SEP–14 work plans. With
respect to the livability criteria, NHLP’s
comments generally recommend that
the SEP–14 focus more on HUD goals
and incorporate the promotion equitable
and affordable housing, support for
existing communities, and valuing
communities and neighborhoods. The
NHLP also suggests that a percentage of
FHWA funds be set aside for training,
that the HUD CDBG and Section 3
offices be informed when a SEP–14
work plan is submitted.
FHWA Response: With respect to
NHLP’s comments to expand the
livability criteria to focus more on HUD
goals and to set aside funds for training,
the FHWA declines to do so for the
reasons discussed in response to NHC’s
and TEN’s comments: the promotion of
affordable housing, while a laudable
goal, is not the focus of FHWA’s mission
and the Federal-aid highway program
already administers a training program.
With respect to enforcement of HUD’s
Section 3 requirements, HUD will
continue to administer the CDBG
Program and will ensure that the
applicable requirements are met.
However, the FHWA agrees with
NHLP’s comment regarding the
notification of HUD regarding the
receipt of a SEP–14 work plan and will
work with HUD to develop an
appropriate protocol.
7. Transportation for America (TFA)
The TFA expressed strong support for
the SEP–14 approach. The TFA suggests
strengthening the criteria for evaluating
livability by requiring applicants to
include housing components and to add
explicit language regarding the
eligibility of using Federal funds for Onthe-Job Training and Apprenticeship
Programs. The TFA further suggests that
DOT be explicit about how this SEP–14
eligibility furthers the Nation’s livability
goals.
FHWA Response: With respect to
TFA’s comments to strengthen the
livability criteria by including housing
components and to clarify eligibility for
training, the FHWA declines to do so for
the reasons discussed in response to
NHC’s, TEN’s, and NHLP’s comments:
the promotion of affordable housing,
while a laudable goal, is not the focus
of FHWA’s mission and the Federal-aid
highway program already administers a
training program through which training
activities will be conducted.
Additionally, the FHWA believes that
the existing livability criteria is
sufficient to show how the project will
further livability from a transportation
perspective.
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36469
8. Brown and Mitchell, Inc.
Brown and Mitchell, Inc., (Brown and
Mitchell) a consulting engineering firm
in Mississippi, supports the SEP–14
proposal to harmonize FHWA and HUD
contracting requirements. Brown and
Mitchell represents local communities
who have been required to procure and
award construction projects separately
because of the conflicting requirements
in FHWA and HUD regulations. Brown
and Mitchell gives specific examples of
two projects that had to be administered
separately due to the conflict between
FHWA and HUD provisions. Brown and
Mitchell states that requiring projects to
be undertaken under separate contracts
due to conflicting regulations is a waste
of time and taxpayer money in most
cases because it is more efficient to
procure the work under a single
contract.
FHWA Response: Brown and Mitchell
provides a good example of what the
FHWA is trying to accomplish with this
SEP–14 approach. Utilizing SEP–14, the
FHWA will be able to examine the
potential impacts on competition and
whether competition, cost, and overall
project efficiency will be enhanced by
allowing the HUD funded work and
FHWA funded work to be advertised
and awarded as part of a single contract.
Once we determine that we have
enough data, we will consider to what
extent a change in the regulations may
be warranted.
9. Lincoln County Highway Department
The Lincoln County Highway
Department (Lincoln County,
Minnesota) concurs with the SEP–14
initiative, and notes that cooperation
and streamlining of regulations can save
money. However, the Lincoln County
Highway Department expresses concern
that transportation funds continue to be
applied to transportation and not
housing.
FHWA Response: The FHWA is not
altering the eligibility requirements for
Federal-aid highway funding. The
underlying project subject to a SEP–14
proposal must meet existing program
funding eligibility requirements.
10. Joyce Dillard
Joyce Dillard comments that the
economic component of the HUD
funding is critical to low income areas
and that suspension of this component
could be devastating.
FHWA Response: The FHWA is not
proposing to alter the economic
component of the HUD funding
programs. Rather, the FHWA’s SEP–14
initiative would permit the HUD
geographic hiring preferences to be
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
36470
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
utilized on a joint FHWA/HUD project
rather than requiring separate contracts
for the HUD and FHWA funded work.
11. American Road and Transportation
Builders Association (ARTBA)
The ARTBA commented that, while
they are supportive of efforts to ease the
contracting process and reduce delay,
ARTBA is concerned that using SEP–14
to projects geared toward livability is
inconsistent with the purpose and goals
of the SEP–14 program. The ARTBA
also expresses concern that the HUD
and FHWA contracting requirements are
designed for distinct and different
purposes in that the HUD requirements
are geared toward ensuring employment
and economic opportunity while
FHWA’s are intended to ensure costefficient and timely delivery of highway
project. Allowing the incorporation of
HUD’s hiring preferences would
represent a major policy change and
undermine the time-tested open and
competitive bidding process.
Additionally, ARTBA expresses concern
that transportation funds are not
diverted toward non-transportation
purposes, and that joint FHWA/HUD
contracts could lead to participation by
contractors who are not prequalified to
do highway work.
FHWA Response: The primary
objective of the SEP–14 initiative is to
determine what contracting efficiencies
can be realized by harmonizing the HUD
and FHWA contracting requirements.
This objective falls within the stated
purpose of the SEP–14 program. As
highlighted by PennDOT, who has
abandoned CBDG money on two
projects as a result of these conflicting
requirements, and by Mitchell and
Brown, who provided two examples of
projects that were split into separate
contracts, there appear to be
disincentives for grant recipients to use
CDBG funds on otherwise eligible
Federal-aid highway activities and
inefficiencies in forcing recipients to
award separate contracts to resolve the
issue. It is possible that competition can
actually be enhanced when a single
contract is used. The FHWA’s primary
intent behind this SEP–14 initiative is to
evaluate the contracting efficiencies and
inefficiencies associated with joint
FHWA/HUD projects.
With respect to livability, it is the
DOT’s policy to promote projects that
further livability, and the FHWA has set
out some criteria for what the agency is
looking for with respect to livability. We
believe that the inherent nature of
projects that qualify for HUD funding
most likely satisfy the livability criteria.
However, the fact that a project may be
a livable project does not make it any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
less transportation oriented. As stated
above, the primary purpose of this SEP–
14 initiative is contracting efficiency.
However, the FHWA would also like
know whether these projects that are
jointly funded by FHWA and HUD
further livability.
With respect to ARTBA’s concern
about the possible diversion of
transportation funding to nontransportation projects, and as
explained in response to the comments
from the Lincoln County Highway
Department, the underlying project
subject to a SEP–14 proposal must meet
existing highway program funding
eligibility requirements. The FHWA will
not allow highway funds to be diverted
to housing projects. Also, with respect
to the concern that contractors who are
not prequalified to do highway work
may be awarded construction contracts,
prequalification has always been, and
continues to be, a State department of
transportation matter. The States will
continue to be responsible for
establishing the qualification
requirements for contractors doing
highway work.
12. Maryland Department of
Transportation (MDOT)
The MDOT commented that it
supports the goals of this SEP–14
initiative to enhance the coordination of
the Federal-aid Highway Program with
grant programs administered by HUD
and EPA. The MDOT further noted the
following observations related to the
initiative: (1) The FHWA should explore
how HUD provisions might be extended
to transit projects; (2) MDOT will ensure
that, in light of this initiative, it does not
create a bias in favor of urban projects
over rural projects; (3) the notice is
unclear regarding the extent to which
HUD planning requirements apply; (4)
the initiative should include
mechanisms to help recipients identify
and monitor HUD Section 3
performance; (5) the FHWA should
issue guidance on HUD reporting
requirements; (6) the State may need to
amend its existing procurement law and
minority preference programs in order
to take advantage of this SEP–14
initiative; and (7) the livability factors
should be amended to include the
degree to which the project enhances
access to public transit.
FHWA Response: The FHWA
appreciates MDOT support for this
program, which the FHWA believes will
result in contracting efficiencies and
increased funding flexibility for the
States. With respect to MDOT’s
observations, the FHWA responds as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(1) The FHWA should explore how
HUD provisions might be extended to
transit projects: The expansion of this
SEP–14 initiative to transit projects is
beyond the scope of SEP–14. This is an
issue for the Federal Transit
Administration.
(2) MDOT will ensure that, in light of
this initiative, it does not create a bias
in favor of urban projects over rural
projects: The FHWA appreciates
MDOT’s awareness of this issue and
encourages the State to take appropriate
steps to utilize its Federal-aid highway
funds as the State deems most
appropriate.
(3) The notice is unclear regarding the
extent to which HUD planning
requirements apply: Grant recipients
must apply with applicable FHWA and
HUD requirements.
(4) The initiative should include
mechanisms to help recipients identify
and monitor HUD Section 3
performance: The FHWA is not
responsible for the administration of the
HUD’s Section 3 Program. HUD is the
most appropriate agency to help
recipients comply with HUD Section 3
requirements.
(5) The FHWA should issue guidance
on HUD reporting requirements: The
FHWA is not responsible for the
administration of the HUD’s Section 3
Program. HUD is the most appropriate
agency to help recipients comply with
HUD Section 3 requirements.
(6) The State may need to amend its
existing procurement law and minority
preference programs in order to take
advantage of this SEP–14 initiative: The
use of this SEP–14 initiative is not
mandatory. States wishing to participate
should first ensure that doing so is
consistent with State requirements.
(7) The livability factors should be
amended to include the degree to which
the project enhances access to public
transit: The livability factors already
address the extent to which the project
will enhance user mobility through the
creation of more convenient
transportation options and whether the
project will improve existing
transportation choices by enhancing
modal connectivity. The FHWA believes
that these factors already encompass the
degree to which a project may, among
other things, enhance access to public
transit.
SEP–14 Initiative
The FHWA has decided to permit
States to request SEP–14 approval for
contracting practices intended to
enhance livability and sustainability as
part of any project that is to be jointly
funded with HUD. In order to receive
SEP–14 approval, States should follow
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
the normal process and submit work
plans to the appropriate FHWA division
office. For more information on the
SEP–14 process, please see: https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/
contracts/sep_a.cfm.
In particular, with respect to projects
involving activities that otherwise meet
the requirements for the use of FHWA
and HUD funds, States may experiment
under SEP–14 with combining these
funding sources for single, integrated
projects that are procured and bid under
a single contract while complying with
training, employment, and contracting
requirements of HUD’s Section 3, to the
greatest extent feasible. The purpose of
the experiment is to gauge the extent to
which HUD funding may be used for
highway projects, the effects on
competition whenever HUD’s economic
opportunity requirements are used on a
joint FHWA/HUD project, and the
extent to which the alignment of FHWA
and HUD requirements further
livability.
The FHWA will only consider the
possible use of HUD’s economic
opportunity requirements under SEP–14
in the context of a joint FHWA/HUD
project and only to the extent necessary
to comply with applicable HUD statutes.
The FHWA will not consider the use of
such preferences unless necessary to
meet the requirements of a Federal
grant-in-aid program.
In developing their work plans, States
should address, at a minimum, the
following points:
1. Competition
a. States should describe how they
will evaluate the effects of HUD’s
economic opportunity requirements on
competitive bidding. In doing so, the
States may wish to compare the bids
received for the proposed project to
prior projects of similar size and scope
and in the same geographic area.
b. States should quantify and report
on the expected economic benefits from
advancing the joint FHWA/HUD project
under a single contract.
c. States wishing to utilize SEP–14 to
permit the use of HUD-required hiring
preferences on joint FHWA/HUD
projects should identify the amount of
HUD and FHWA funding involved in
the project as well as the estimated total
project cost. In order to qualify for a
SEP–14 approval to use a geographic
preference for a joint FHWA/HUD
project, the amount of HUD funding
involved with the project must be at
least 10 percent of the amount of Title
23 eligible work, or with respect to
projects financed with $100,000,000 or
more in Federal funding in the
aggregate, 5 percent of such eligible
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
work. In any event, the FHWA may
reject SEP–14 work plans for projects
with only de minimis amount of HUD
funding.
d. States should address whether the
HUD provision at issue conflicts with
FHWA regulations and is necessary to
meet HUD program requirements.
e. The work plan should address the
degree to which the project enhances
livability and sustainability.
2. Livability
Livability investments are projects
that not only deliver transportation
benefits, but are also designed and
planned in such a way that they have
a positive impact on qualitative
measures of community life. This
element of long-term outcomes delivers
benefits that are inherently difficult to
measure. However, it is implicit to
livability that its benefits are shared and
therefore magnified by the number of
potential users in the affected
community.
The workplan should provide a
description of the affected community
and the scale of the project’s impact.
Factors relevant to whether a project
improves the quality of the living and
working environment of a community
include:
a. Will the project significantly
enhance user mobility through the
creation of more convenient
transportation options for travelers?
b. Will the project improve existing
transportation choices by enhancing
points of modal connectivity or by
reducing congestion on existing modal
assets?
c. Will the project improve
accessibility and transport services for
economically disadvantaged
populations, non-drivers, senior
citizens, and persons with disabilities,
or to make goods, commodities, and
services more readily available to these
groups?
d. Is the project the result of a
planning process which coordinated
transportation and land-use planning
decisions and encouraged community
participation in the process?
3. Sustainability
Sustainability refers to whether a
project promotes a more
environmentally sustainable
transportation system. The workplan
should address the following issues
relevant to sustainability:
a. Does the project improve energy
efficiency, reduce dependence on oil
and/or reduce greenhouse gas
emissions? Applicants are encouraged
to provide quantitative information
regarding expected reductions in
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36471
emissions of CO2 or fuel consumption
as a result of the project, or expected use
of clean or alternative sources of energy.
Projects that demonstrate a projected
decrease in the movement of people or
goods by less energy-efficient vehicles
or systems will be given priority under
this factor.
b. Does the project maintain, protect
or enhance the environment, as
evidenced by its avoidance of adverse
environmental impacts (for example,
adverse impacts related to air quality,
wetlands, and endangered species) and/
or by its environmental benefits (for
example, improved air quality, wetlands
creation or improved habitat
connectivity)?
c. Does the project further the goals of
the DOT, HUD, and EPA Sustainable
Communities Partnership discussed
above?
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315.
Issued on: June 21, 2010.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–15438 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Seventh Meeting—RTCA Special
Committee 220: Automatic Flight
Guidance and Control
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special
Committee 220: Automatic Flight
Guidance and Control meeting.
SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice
to advise the public of a meeting of
RTCA Special Committee 220:
Automatic Flight Guidance and Control.
DATES: The meeting will be held July
13–15, 2010. July 13th and 14th from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. and July 15th from 9 a.m.
to 2 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Bourbon Orleans Hotel, 717 Orleans
Street, New Orleans, LA 70116, Phone:
504–571–4687, Fax: 504–525–8166, EMail: https://www.bourbonorleans.com.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1)
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036;
telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202)
833–9434; Web site https://www.rtca.org.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is
hereby given for a Special Committee
220: Automatic Flight Guidance and
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36467-36471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15438]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2010-0027]
Livability Initiative Under Special Experimental Project No. 14
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is announcing a livability initiative to harmonize
and coordinate the Federal-aid highway program with grant-in-aid
programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under
this initiative, the FHWA will utilize Special Experimental Project No.
14 (SEP-14) to permit, on a case-by-case basis, the application of HUD
requirements on Federal-aid highway projects that may otherwise
conflict with Federal-aid highway program requirements. One such
requirement is contained in HUD's Section 3 Program, the goal of which
is to provide training, employment and contracting opportunities to low
and very low income persons residing within the metropolitan area (or
nonmetropolitan county) in which the project is located and businesses
that substantially employ such persons. The purposes of this SEP-14
initiative is to evaluate the contracting efficiencies and impacts on
competition in harmonizing conflicting FHWA and HUD contracting
requirements, and to further the goals of the DOT, HUD, and EPA
partnership on sustainable communities. This initiative will not result
in the diversion of highway funds to housing projects. The statutory
funding eligibility requirements must continue to be met in order to
use Federal-aid highway funds.
DATES: This new experimental project is being initiated on June 25,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Mr. Gerald
Yakowenko, Office of Program Administration (HIPA), (202) 366-1562. For
legal information: Mr. Michael Harkins, Office of the Chief Counsel
(HCC-30), (202) 366-4928, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45
a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
Interested parties may access the comments received by FHWA by
going online and entering the following Web address: https://www.regulations.gov, which is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are
available under the help section of the Web site.
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the
Office of the Federal Register's home page at https://www.archives.gov/federal_register and the Government Printing Office's Web page at
https://www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
On March 30, 2010, the FHWA published a notice (75 FR 15767)
regarding the FHWA's proposal to permit, on a case-by-case basis, the
application of HUD requirements on Federal-aid highway projects that
may otherwise conflict with Federal-aid highway program requirements,
such as HUD's Section 3 Program that requires employment opportunities
be provided to low and very low income persons residing within the area
in which the project is located. This SEP-14 initiative is being
advanced by the FHWA in order to evaluate the potential efficiencies
that may be realized by harmonizing FHWA and HUD contracting
requirements for jointly funded projects. Additionally, this initiative
furthers the June 16, 2009, DOT, HUD, and EPA Interagency Partnership
for Sustainable Communities. One of the goals of this partnership is to
better align DOT, HUD, and EPA programs to encourage better
coordination and location efficiency in housing and transportation
choices. More information on the partnership can be found at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/and https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/.
SEP-14
In 1988, a Transportation Research Board (TRB) task force,
comprised of representatives from all segments of the highway industry,
was formed to evaluate Innovative Contracting Practices. This TRB task
force requested that the FHWA establish a project to evaluate and
validate certain findings of the task force regarding innovative
contracting practices, which are documented in Transportation Research
Circular Number 386, titled, ``Innovative Contracting Practices,''
dated December 1991. In response, the FHWA initiated Special
Experimental Project No. 14 (SEP-14) pursuant to the authority granted
to the Secretary under 23 U.S.C. 502(a). (https://fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/021390.cfm).
[[Page 36468]]
The SEP-14 strives to identify, evaluate, and document innovative
contracting practices that have the potential to reduce the life cycle
cost of projects, while at the same time, maintain product quality.
Under SEP-14, the FHWA has the flexibility to experiment with
innovative approaches to contracting. However, SEP-14 does not seek
alternatives to the open competitive bid process.
The innovative practices originally approved for evaluation were:
Cost-plus-time bidding, lane rental, design-build contracting, and
warranty clauses. Forty-one States have used at least one of the
innovative practices under SEP-14. Based on their collective
experiences, FHWA decided that cost-plus-time bidding, lane rental, and
warranty clauses were techniques suitable for use as non-experimental,
operational practices and in 1995 these were made regular Federal-aid
procedures. Additionally, design-build contracting in the Federal-aid
highway program was originally conducted under SEP-14 until Congress
modified 23 U.S.C. 112 in section 1307 of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century to permanently authorize the use of this
contracting method. The SEP-14 continues to be used to test and
evaluate experimental contracting practices.
Discussion of Comments
Summary
On Tuesday, March 30, 2010, the FHWA published a notice and
requested comment on a proposed contracting approach to be evaluated
under SEP-14. Specifically, the contracting approach proposed seeks to
harmonize FHWA and HUD contracting requirements by permitting States to
apply HUD's local hiring provisions, which are required by HUD's
Section 3 Program as a condition to using HUD's Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funding. The FHWA proposes to advance this SEP-14
approach pursuant to the DOT/HUD/EPA Sustainable Communities
Partnership.
The FHWA received 12 comments in response to this notice. Of these
comments, nine were supportive (in varying degrees), one was neutral,
and one was opposed. As a result of these comments, only one change is
recommended for incorporation into the final notice. This change comes
from the comment made by the National Housing Law Project, who
suggested that the FHWA notify HUD whenever a SEP-14 application is
made by a State DOT.
Identification and Response to Comments
The following identifies and summarizes the major comments
submitted by all the commenters in response to the March 30 notice, as
well as the FHWA response:
1. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
The Caltrans states that it would support the proposed SEP-14
approach if FHWA's regulations are amended to permit geographic
preferences.
FHWA Response: The purpose of this experiment is to evaluate the
effects, including impacts on competition, of applying HUD contracting
requirements to FHWA projects. Once the FHWA determines that enough
data has been obtained, the FHWA will consider to what extent a change
in the regulations may be warranted.
2. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)
The PennDOT supports utilizing SEP-14 to permit the use of HUD's
Section 3 Program on joint FHWA/HUD projects. Doing so would enable
both PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development to maximize the use of both agencies' Federal dollars while
reducing the financial burden on municipalities when undertaking these
projects. The PennDOT notes that they have abandoned the use of CDBG
funds on two projects because of the conflicting requirements between
the FHWA and HUD programs.
The PennDOT further notes an additional conflict between FHWA and
HUD requirements. Specifically, the FHWA applies a disadvantaged
business enterprise (DBE) program where there is a single goal for all
disadvantaged businesses while HUD applies a minority and woman owned
business enterprise (MBE/WBE) program where there are separate goals
for minority and women owned businesses. The PennDOT recommends the
application of the FHWA's DBE program since the FHWA would typically
have the larger financial interest in the project.
The PennDOT further recommends that SEP-14 approval be granted for
a group or class of projects for administrative convenience.
FHWA Response: The PennDOT provides a good example of the type of
problem the FHWA intends to address with this SEP-14 approach. However,
the FHWA is not proposing any variations to the DBE program and does
not have authority to change HUD's MBE/WBE program. Since most
contractors would likely have certifications for both DOT's DBE program
and HUD's MBE/WBE program, the FHWA believes that both programs'
program can be consistently applied to joint FHWA/HUD projects. Lastly,
the project or projects for which SEP-14 approval will be granted will
be determined by the scope of the State's work plan in which the State
may propose to use the SEP-14 approach for one or more projects.
However, the FHWA does not believe that approval should be granted for
an entire class or category of projects.
3. National Housing Conference (NHC)
The NHC supports the use of SEP-14 to reduce conflicts that would
jeopardize the application of HUD's Section 3 Program to joint FHWA/HUD
projects as well as the interest to combine HUD and DOT funding to
advance the goals of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The
NHC further agrees with the requirement for States to address the
degree to which the project enhances livability and sustainability in
their work plans, but is concerned with the omission of a reference to
the importance of affordable housing in advancing livability and
sustainability. As such, NHC suggests that the States address the
following question in their work plans: ``Will the project reduce
families' combined costs for housing and transportation?''
Additionally, NHC suggests asking the States whether their
transportation and land use plans have been coordinated with affordable
housing activities.
FHWA Response: The FHWA appreciates NHC's comments and fully
supports the goals of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.
However, the FHWA declines to incorporate NHC's specific suggestions.
While affordable housing is part of the overall goal of the Partnership
for Sustainable Communities, the FHWA's efforts under the Partnership
must be consistent with the agency's mission, which is to administer
the Federal-aid highway program. Since this SEP-14 approach only
concerns the administration of the Federal-aid highway program,
requirements and data related to affordable housing would be beyond the
scope of the experiment.
4. Transportation Equity Network (TEN)
The TEN strongly supports the use of SEP-14 to harmonize
conflicting FHWA and HUD requirements. However, TEN suggests that the
Federal-aid highway program provide training and employment
opportunities to low and very low income persons residing within the
metropolitan area in which
[[Page 36469]]
the project is located. The TEN also suggests strengthening the
criteria for evaluating how projects enhance livability, such as
increasing economic development and promoting access to job
opportunities.
FHWA Response: The Federal-aid highway program already includes an
On-the-Job Training Program under which State DOTs are required to
offer apprenticeship and training programs targeted to move women,
minorities, and socially and economically disadvantaged persons into
journey level positions, and an On-the-Job Training and Supportive
Services Program under which $10,000,000 every year is made available
for training. For more information, please see: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/eeo.htm. Also, the FHWA declines to expand
the livability criteria as suggested by TEN. The FHWA believes the
livability criteria set out in the notice are sufficient for purposes
of the SEP-14 approach to be conducted.
5. American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial Organizations,
Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD)
The BCTD supports the SEP-14 approach and the goals established for
the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. However, BCTD does not
feel that SEP-14 is necessary to allow application of HUD's Section 3
Program requirements. Rather, BCTD urges the Secretary to amend the
regulations. The BCTD also asserts that the FHWA routinely denies
requests to use project labor agreements (PLAs) because union hiring
hall procedures, which confer a geographic preference for employment,
are contrary to FHWA requirements.
FHWA Response: The FHWA has long maintained that local hiring
preferences are inconsistent with the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 112 to
require such plans and specifications and methods of bidding as are
effective in securing competition. With this SEP-14 approach, the FHWA
is interested in examining the potential impacts on competition and
whether competition, cost, and overall project efficiency will be
enhanced by allowing the HUD funded work and FHWA funded work to be
advertised and awarded as part of a single contract. Once we determine
that we have enough data, we will consider to what extent a change in
the regulations may be warranted.
6. National Housing Law Project (NHLP)
The NHLP is generally supportive the SEP-14 approach. The NHLP
submitted lengthy comments, but they are generally concerned with
ensuring that HUD's Section 3 requirements are met and further enhance
the livability criteria of the SEP-14 work plans. With respect to the
livability criteria, NHLP's comments generally recommend that the SEP-
14 focus more on HUD goals and incorporate the promotion equitable and
affordable housing, support for existing communities, and valuing
communities and neighborhoods. The NHLP also suggests that a percentage
of FHWA funds be set aside for training, that the HUD CDBG and Section
3 offices be informed when a SEP-14 work plan is submitted.
FHWA Response: With respect to NHLP's comments to expand the
livability criteria to focus more on HUD goals and to set aside funds
for training, the FHWA declines to do so for the reasons discussed in
response to NHC's and TEN's comments: the promotion of affordable
housing, while a laudable goal, is not the focus of FHWA's mission and
the Federal-aid highway program already administers a training program.
With respect to enforcement of HUD's Section 3 requirements, HUD will
continue to administer the CDBG Program and will ensure that the
applicable requirements are met. However, the FHWA agrees with NHLP's
comment regarding the notification of HUD regarding the receipt of a
SEP-14 work plan and will work with HUD to develop an appropriate
protocol.
7. Transportation for America (TFA)
The TFA expressed strong support for the SEP-14 approach. The TFA
suggests strengthening the criteria for evaluating livability by
requiring applicants to include housing components and to add explicit
language regarding the eligibility of using Federal funds for On-the-
Job Training and Apprenticeship Programs. The TFA further suggests that
DOT be explicit about how this SEP-14 eligibility furthers the Nation's
livability goals.
FHWA Response: With respect to TFA's comments to strengthen the
livability criteria by including housing components and to clarify
eligibility for training, the FHWA declines to do so for the reasons
discussed in response to NHC's, TEN's, and NHLP's comments: the
promotion of affordable housing, while a laudable goal, is not the
focus of FHWA's mission and the Federal-aid highway program already
administers a training program through which training activities will
be conducted. Additionally, the FHWA believes that the existing
livability criteria is sufficient to show how the project will further
livability from a transportation perspective.
8. Brown and Mitchell, Inc.
Brown and Mitchell, Inc., (Brown and Mitchell) a consulting
engineering firm in Mississippi, supports the SEP-14 proposal to
harmonize FHWA and HUD contracting requirements. Brown and Mitchell
represents local communities who have been required to procure and
award construction projects separately because of the conflicting
requirements in FHWA and HUD regulations. Brown and Mitchell gives
specific examples of two projects that had to be administered
separately due to the conflict between FHWA and HUD provisions. Brown
and Mitchell states that requiring projects to be undertaken under
separate contracts due to conflicting regulations is a waste of time
and taxpayer money in most cases because it is more efficient to
procure the work under a single contract.
FHWA Response: Brown and Mitchell provides a good example of what
the FHWA is trying to accomplish with this SEP-14 approach. Utilizing
SEP-14, the FHWA will be able to examine the potential impacts on
competition and whether competition, cost, and overall project
efficiency will be enhanced by allowing the HUD funded work and FHWA
funded work to be advertised and awarded as part of a single contract.
Once we determine that we have enough data, we will consider to what
extent a change in the regulations may be warranted.
9. Lincoln County Highway Department
The Lincoln County Highway Department (Lincoln County, Minnesota)
concurs with the SEP-14 initiative, and notes that cooperation and
streamlining of regulations can save money. However, the Lincoln County
Highway Department expresses concern that transportation funds continue
to be applied to transportation and not housing.
FHWA Response: The FHWA is not altering the eligibility
requirements for Federal-aid highway funding. The underlying project
subject to a SEP-14 proposal must meet existing program funding
eligibility requirements.
10. Joyce Dillard
Joyce Dillard comments that the economic component of the HUD
funding is critical to low income areas and that suspension of this
component could be devastating.
FHWA Response: The FHWA is not proposing to alter the economic
component of the HUD funding programs. Rather, the FHWA's SEP-14
initiative would permit the HUD geographic hiring preferences to be
[[Page 36470]]
utilized on a joint FHWA/HUD project rather than requiring separate
contracts for the HUD and FHWA funded work.
11. American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
The ARTBA commented that, while they are supportive of efforts to
ease the contracting process and reduce delay, ARTBA is concerned that
using SEP-14 to projects geared toward livability is inconsistent with
the purpose and goals of the SEP-14 program. The ARTBA also expresses
concern that the HUD and FHWA contracting requirements are designed for
distinct and different purposes in that the HUD requirements are geared
toward ensuring employment and economic opportunity while FHWA's are
intended to ensure cost-efficient and timely delivery of highway
project. Allowing the incorporation of HUD's hiring preferences would
represent a major policy change and undermine the time-tested open and
competitive bidding process. Additionally, ARTBA expresses concern that
transportation funds are not diverted toward non-transportation
purposes, and that joint FHWA/HUD contracts could lead to participation
by contractors who are not prequalified to do highway work.
FHWA Response: The primary objective of the SEP-14 initiative is to
determine what contracting efficiencies can be realized by harmonizing
the HUD and FHWA contracting requirements. This objective falls within
the stated purpose of the SEP-14 program. As highlighted by PennDOT,
who has abandoned CBDG money on two projects as a result of these
conflicting requirements, and by Mitchell and Brown, who provided two
examples of projects that were split into separate contracts, there
appear to be disincentives for grant recipients to use CDBG funds on
otherwise eligible Federal-aid highway activities and inefficiencies in
forcing recipients to award separate contracts to resolve the issue. It
is possible that competition can actually be enhanced when a single
contract is used. The FHWA's primary intent behind this SEP-14
initiative is to evaluate the contracting efficiencies and
inefficiencies associated with joint FHWA/HUD projects.
With respect to livability, it is the DOT's policy to promote
projects that further livability, and the FHWA has set out some
criteria for what the agency is looking for with respect to livability.
We believe that the inherent nature of projects that qualify for HUD
funding most likely satisfy the livability criteria. However, the fact
that a project may be a livable project does not make it any less
transportation oriented. As stated above, the primary purpose of this
SEP-14 initiative is contracting efficiency. However, the FHWA would
also like know whether these projects that are jointly funded by FHWA
and HUD further livability.
With respect to ARTBA's concern about the possible diversion of
transportation funding to non-transportation projects, and as explained
in response to the comments from the Lincoln County Highway Department,
the underlying project subject to a SEP-14 proposal must meet existing
highway program funding eligibility requirements. The FHWA will not
allow highway funds to be diverted to housing projects. Also, with
respect to the concern that contractors who are not prequalified to do
highway work may be awarded construction contracts, prequalification
has always been, and continues to be, a State department of
transportation matter. The States will continue to be responsible for
establishing the qualification requirements for contractors doing
highway work.
12. Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT)
The MDOT commented that it supports the goals of this SEP-14
initiative to enhance the coordination of the Federal-aid Highway
Program with grant programs administered by HUD and EPA. The MDOT
further noted the following observations related to the initiative: (1)
The FHWA should explore how HUD provisions might be extended to transit
projects; (2) MDOT will ensure that, in light of this initiative, it
does not create a bias in favor of urban projects over rural projects;
(3) the notice is unclear regarding the extent to which HUD planning
requirements apply; (4) the initiative should include mechanisms to
help recipients identify and monitor HUD Section 3 performance; (5) the
FHWA should issue guidance on HUD reporting requirements; (6) the State
may need to amend its existing procurement law and minority preference
programs in order to take advantage of this SEP-14 initiative; and (7)
the livability factors should be amended to include the degree to which
the project enhances access to public transit.
FHWA Response: The FHWA appreciates MDOT support for this program,
which the FHWA believes will result in contracting efficiencies and
increased funding flexibility for the States. With respect to MDOT's
observations, the FHWA responds as follows:
(1) The FHWA should explore how HUD provisions might be extended to
transit projects: The expansion of this SEP-14 initiative to transit
projects is beyond the scope of SEP-14. This is an issue for the
Federal Transit Administration.
(2) MDOT will ensure that, in light of this initiative, it does not
create a bias in favor of urban projects over rural projects: The FHWA
appreciates MDOT's awareness of this issue and encourages the State to
take appropriate steps to utilize its Federal-aid highway funds as the
State deems most appropriate.
(3) The notice is unclear regarding the extent to which HUD
planning requirements apply: Grant recipients must apply with
applicable FHWA and HUD requirements.
(4) The initiative should include mechanisms to help recipients
identify and monitor HUD Section 3 performance: The FHWA is not
responsible for the administration of the HUD's Section 3 Program. HUD
is the most appropriate agency to help recipients comply with HUD
Section 3 requirements.
(5) The FHWA should issue guidance on HUD reporting requirements:
The FHWA is not responsible for the administration of the HUD's Section
3 Program. HUD is the most appropriate agency to help recipients comply
with HUD Section 3 requirements.
(6) The State may need to amend its existing procurement law and
minority preference programs in order to take advantage of this SEP-14
initiative: The use of this SEP-14 initiative is not mandatory. States
wishing to participate should first ensure that doing so is consistent
with State requirements.
(7) The livability factors should be amended to include the degree
to which the project enhances access to public transit: The livability
factors already address the extent to which the project will enhance
user mobility through the creation of more convenient transportation
options and whether the project will improve existing transportation
choices by enhancing modal connectivity. The FHWA believes that these
factors already encompass the degree to which a project may, among
other things, enhance access to public transit.
SEP-14 Initiative
The FHWA has decided to permit States to request SEP-14 approval
for contracting practices intended to enhance livability and
sustainability as part of any project that is to be jointly funded with
HUD. In order to receive SEP-14 approval, States should follow
[[Page 36471]]
the normal process and submit work plans to the appropriate FHWA
division office. For more information on the SEP-14 process, please
see: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/sep_a.cfm.
In particular, with respect to projects involving activities that
otherwise meet the requirements for the use of FHWA and HUD funds,
States may experiment under SEP-14 with combining these funding sources
for single, integrated projects that are procured and bid under a
single contract while complying with training, employment, and
contracting requirements of HUD's Section 3, to the greatest extent
feasible. The purpose of the experiment is to gauge the extent to which
HUD funding may be used for highway projects, the effects on
competition whenever HUD's economic opportunity requirements are used
on a joint FHWA/HUD project, and the extent to which the alignment of
FHWA and HUD requirements further livability.
The FHWA will only consider the possible use of HUD's economic
opportunity requirements under SEP-14 in the context of a joint FHWA/
HUD project and only to the extent necessary to comply with applicable
HUD statutes. The FHWA will not consider the use of such preferences
unless necessary to meet the requirements of a Federal grant-in-aid
program.
In developing their work plans, States should address, at a
minimum, the following points:
1. Competition
a. States should describe how they will evaluate the effects of
HUD's economic opportunity requirements on competitive bidding. In
doing so, the States may wish to compare the bids received for the
proposed project to prior projects of similar size and scope and in the
same geographic area.
b. States should quantify and report on the expected economic
benefits from advancing the joint FHWA/HUD project under a single
contract.
c. States wishing to utilize SEP-14 to permit the use of HUD-
required hiring preferences on joint FHWA/HUD projects should identify
the amount of HUD and FHWA funding involved in the project as well as
the estimated total project cost. In order to qualify for a SEP-14
approval to use a geographic preference for a joint FHWA/HUD project,
the amount of HUD funding involved with the project must be at least 10
percent of the amount of Title 23 eligible work, or with respect to
projects financed with $100,000,000 or more in Federal funding in the
aggregate, 5 percent of such eligible work. In any event, the FHWA may
reject SEP-14 work plans for projects with only de minimis amount of
HUD funding.
d. States should address whether the HUD provision at issue
conflicts with FHWA regulations and is necessary to meet HUD program
requirements.
e. The work plan should address the degree to which the project
enhances livability and sustainability.
2. Livability
Livability investments are projects that not only deliver
transportation benefits, but are also designed and planned in such a
way that they have a positive impact on qualitative measures of
community life. This element of long-term outcomes delivers benefits
that are inherently difficult to measure. However, it is implicit to
livability that its benefits are shared and therefore magnified by the
number of potential users in the affected community.
The workplan should provide a description of the affected community
and the scale of the project's impact. Factors relevant to whether a
project improves the quality of the living and working environment of a
community include:
a. Will the project significantly enhance user mobility through the
creation of more convenient transportation options for travelers?
b. Will the project improve existing transportation choices by
enhancing points of modal connectivity or by reducing congestion on
existing modal assets?
c. Will the project improve accessibility and transport services
for economically disadvantaged populations, non-drivers, senior
citizens, and persons with disabilities, or to make goods, commodities,
and services more readily available to these groups?
d. Is the project the result of a planning process which
coordinated transportation and land-use planning decisions and
encouraged community participation in the process?
3. Sustainability
Sustainability refers to whether a project promotes a more
environmentally sustainable transportation system. The workplan should
address the following issues relevant to sustainability:
a. Does the project improve energy efficiency, reduce dependence on
oil and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Applicants are encouraged
to provide quantitative information regarding expected reductions in
emissions of CO2 or fuel consumption as a result of the project, or
expected use of clean or alternative sources of energy. Projects that
demonstrate a projected decrease in the movement of people or goods by
less energy-efficient vehicles or systems will be given priority under
this factor.
b. Does the project maintain, protect or enhance the environment,
as evidenced by its avoidance of adverse environmental impacts (for
example, adverse impacts related to air quality, wetlands, and
endangered species) and/or by its environmental benefits (for example,
improved air quality, wetlands creation or improved habitat
connectivity)?
c. Does the project further the goals of the DOT, HUD, and EPA
Sustainable Communities Partnership discussed above?
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315.
Issued on: June 21, 2010.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-15438 Filed 6-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
