[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36467-36471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: http://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 http://www.archives.gov/federal_register and the Government Printing Office's Web page at
http://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 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/and http://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). (http://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: http://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: http://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