4864 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Issued on: January 24, 2006. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 06–827 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 611 

[Docket No. FTA–2005–22841] 

RIN 2132–AA81 

Major Capital Investment Projects 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking provides 

interested parties with the opportunity 

to comment on the characteristics and 

requirements proposed by the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) for a new 

capital investment program. This new 

program, ‘‘Small Starts’’, is a 

discretionary grant program for public 

transportation capital projects that run 

along a dedicated corridor or a fixed 

guideway, have a total project cost of 

less than $250 million, and are seeking 

less than $75 million in Small Starts 

program funding. 

This Small Starts program is a 

component of the existing New Starts 

program, but will offer project sponsors 

an expedited and streamlined 

application and review process. 

Consistent with the intent and 

provisions of the new public transit 

statute, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

and Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–

LU), FTA hopes to simplify the 

planning and project development 

process for proposed Small Starts 

projects in a number of ways. In 

addition to the reduced number of 

evaluation measures specified in 

SAFETEA–LU, the process may be 

further simplified by allowing small 

projects to conduct alternatives analysis 

with a reduced set of alternatives, 

allowing evaluation measures for 

mobility and cost-effectiveness to be 

developed without having to rely on 

complicated travel demand modeling 

procedures in some cases, and possibly 

defining some classes of low-cost 

improvements that are pre-approved as 

effective and cost-effective in certain 

contexts. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 10, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Written Comments: Submit 

written comments to the Dockets 

Management System, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

Comments. You may submit 

comments identified by the docket 

number (FTA–2005–22841) by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2478. 

• Mail: Docket Management System; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: To the Docket 

Management System; Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this notice. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

Public Participation heading of the 

Supplementary Information section of 

this document. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://dms.dot.gov including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to the Docket 

Management System (see ADDRESSES). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Fisher, Office of Planning and 

Environment, telephone (202) 366–

4033, Federal Transit Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. Office hours are from 9 

a.m. to 5:30 p.m. for FTA, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 10, 2005, President Bush 

signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

and Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–

LU). Section 3011 of SAFETEA–LU 

made a number of changes to 49 U.S.C. 

5309, which authorizes the Federal 

Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) fixed 

guideway capital investment program 

known as ‘‘New Starts’’. In addition to 

the changes made to the New Starts 

program, for which FTA intends to issue 

separate policy guidance and a revised 

regulation, section 5309 has been 

amended to add a new subsection (3) 

containing a new capital investment 

program category for projects requesting 

federal funding of less than $75,000,000 

with a total project cost of less than 

$250,000,000. That new capital 

investment program, which will be 

referred to as the ‘‘Small Starts’’

program, is the subject of this ANPRM. 

FTA plans to issue a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in the near future 

that will address changes to the existing 

New Starts program made by section 

3011 of SAFETEA–LU, as well as a 

proposal for the Small Starts program 

based on comments received in 

response to this ANPRM. 

SAFETEA–LU created the new Small 

Starts program category by amending 

section 5309(e) of Chapter 53 of Title 49, 

United States Code. At the same time, 

the current process for larger new fixed 

guideway and extension (‘‘New Starts’’) 

projects was continued (with some 

modifications) under section 5309(d). 

The conference report accompanying 

SAFETEA–LU indicates the expectation 

that projects in this new ‘‘Small Starts’’

category would be ‘‘advanced through 

an expedited and streamlined 

evaluation and rating process.’’

The New Starts process now required 

under section 5309(d) for larger new 

fixed guideway and extension projects 

has been in place for some time and we 

believe represents the point of departure 

from which the new Small Starts 

category should be developed. The New 

Starts process was first outlined by a 

Statement of Policy in 1976 and was 

refined in subsequent Statements of 

Policy in 1978, 1980, and 1984. In the 

Surface Transportation and Uniform 

Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, the 

process called for in the Statements of 

Policy was enacted into law, and was 

subsequently modified by the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991. A Statement of 

Policy in 1997 and further amendments 

in the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century, enacted in 1998, 

culminated in the current Final rule on 

Major Capital Investments (Title 49; Vol. 

6 CFR611.1), issued in December 2000 

and went into effect in April 2001. 

Under the process laid out in statute 

and in the December 2000 Final Rule, 

New Starts projects, like all 

transportation investments in 

metropolitan areas, must emerge from a 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4865 

regional, multi-modal transportation 

planning process. Under the process, 

local project sponsors are required to 

perform an alternatives analysis that 

evaluates the mode and alignment 

options in the community. Once local 

and regional decision makers select a 

locally preferred alternative, and it is 

adopted by the Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) into its long-range 

transportation plan, this phase is 

complete and the project is ready to be 

approved by FTA to enter the next 

phase—Preliminary Engineering (PE). 

During PE, local project sponsors 

consider their design options to refine 

the locally preferred alternative and 

complete the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) process. Upon 

approval by FTA, the project may 

undertake Final Design, which includes 

the preparation of final construction 

plans, detailed specifications, 

construction cost estimates, and bid 

documents. A project which meets the 

statutory criteria for funding is 

constructed using a ‘‘full funding grant 

agreement’’ which defines the scope of 

the project to be constructed, the 

schedule and costs, the source and 

commitment of funds, and the amount 

and timing of Federal funds committed 

to the project. 

Section 5309(d) requires that larger 

New Starts projects (seeking greater than 

$75 million in New Starts funds or 

greater than $250 million in total project 

costs) be evaluated and rated in terms of 

project justification and local financial 

commitment. For project justification, 

section 5309(d) requires an assessment 

of mobility improvements, 

environmental benefits, cost 

effectiveness, operating efficiencies, and 

transit supportive land use and future 

patterns. (The SAFETEA–LU 

amendment to section 5309(d) added 

economic development effects to the 

justification criteria. As noted above, 

this and other changes made by 

SAFETEA–LU will be the subject of a 

subsequent rulemaking.) For local 

financial commitment, assessments 

include the proposed share of total 

project costs from sources other than 

New Starts under section 5309, 

including federal transit formula and 

flexible funds, the local match required 

by Federal law, and any additional 

capital funding; the stability and 

reliability of the proposed capital 

financing plan; and the ability of the 

sponsoring agency to fund the 

operations and maintenance of the 

entire transit system (including existing 

service) as planned, once the project is 

built. To assign overall project ratings to 

each proposed New Starts project, FTA 

considers the individual ratings for each 

of the project justification and local 

financial commitment measures. FTA 

combines this information into 

summary ‘‘finance’’ and ‘‘project 

justification’’ ratings for each 

prospective New Starts project. 

Individual measures and summary 

ratings are designated as ‘‘High,’’

‘‘Medium-High,’’ ‘‘Medium,’’ ‘‘MediumLow’’ or ‘‘Low.’’ These are then 

combined into a single overall rating, 

which prior to enactment of SAFETEA–

LU, was either ‘‘Highly Recommended,’’

‘‘Recommended,’’ or ‘‘Not 

Recommended;’’ under the changes 

made by SAFETEA–LU, the summary 

ratings will range from ‘‘High’’ to 

‘‘Low.’’

The statutory language in section 

5309(e) for Small Starts projects 

provides for some significant differences 

for the Small Starts program in 

comparison to the requirements for 

larger New Starts projects in section 

5309(d). First, the eligibility for funding 

is broader, including certain ‘‘corridorbased bus capital projects,’’ rather than 

only new fixed guideway systems and 

extensions. Projects are limited to those 

with a proposed section 5309 amount of 

less than $75,000,000 and a total project 

cost of less than $250,000,000. The 

project justification criteria are 

simplified, focusing on three criteria—

cost-effectiveness, public transportation 

supportive land use policies, and effect 

on local economic development—rather 

than the more extensive list provided 

for in section 5309(d). The criteria for 

local financial commitment have been 

simplified to focus only on a shorter 

term financial plan. The project 

development process has three steps—

alternatives analysis, project 

development, and construction—rather 

than the four steps—alternatives 

analysis, preliminary engineering, final 

design, and construction—in the section 

5309(d) process. Finally, the instrument 

used for implementing these Small 

Starts projects is a ‘‘project construction 

grant agreement’’ which is to be 

structured as a streamlined version of 

the ‘‘full funding grant agreement’’

required for larger New Starts projects 

under section 5309(d). 

II. Purpose of This ANPRM 

While we believe that the New Starts 

process represents a good starting point 

for the development of the new Small 

Starts program, it is clear from the 

statutory and report language that 

significant simplification is 

contemplated. Indeed, the concept of 

Small Starts was included in the 

Administration’s reauthorization 

proposal because of our belief that it is 

appropriate to apply a simpler process 

and more streamlined evaluation 

approach for smaller projects seeking a 

more limited amount of Federal 

assistance. While FTA believes a 

considerable body of experience with 

the New Starts can be applied to 

enhance development of the Small 

Starts program we believe that a fresh 

look and early examination of key issues 

related to the process and criteria is 

warranted before we develop a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. First, the 

expanded definition of eligibility raises 

a number of questions. Second, tailoring 

the project rating and evaluation process 

to the smaller scale and different nature 

of the projects, which are likely to be 

proposed for funding in this program 

deserves further attention. Finally, the 

project development process should 

also be scaled to properly reflect the size 

and nature of these projects. 

Each of these issues is discussed 

below, in turn. In each section, we 

describe the nature of the specific 

program issues which must be 

addressed in a Final Rule, and we pose 

a series of questions, the answers to 

which will help us frame our approach 

to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

In addition to accepting written 

comments on these issues, FTA plans to 

hold listening sessions in the following 

cities to solicit input on the Small Starts 

and New Starts programs: 

—San Francisco, CA—February 15–16, 

Hyatt Regency San Francisco 

—Ft. Worth, TX—March 1–2, Radisson 

Plaza Hotel Forth Worth 

—Washington, DC—March 9–10, 

Wardman Park Marriott Hotel 

For more information, please contact 

Tonya Holland at 202–493–0283 or 

Tonya.Holland@fta.dot.gov. 

III. Small Starts Eligibility 

SAFETEA–LU constrains eligibility of 

projects for Small Starts funding by 

imposing limits of $75 million in 

section 5309 Small Starts funds and 

$250 million for total project cost. 

However, it broadens eligibility in terms 

of project definition by relaxing the 

existing requirement that the project 

include a fixed guideway. With this 

change, a project that would not meet 

the fixed-guideway criterion is now 

eligible if it (1) includes a substantial 

portion that is in a separate right-ofway, or (2) represents a substantial 

investment in specific kinds of transit 

improvements in a defined corridor. 

The eligibility provisions of the 

statute raise several issues: how to 

define ‘‘substantial portion in a separate 

right-of-way’’; how to define 

‘‘substantial investment’’; the possibility 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
4866 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

that project sponsors could divide 

traditional New Starts projects into two 

or more Small Starts projects; and the 

possibility that a Small Starts project 

might be proposed as the initial transit 

service in a corridor. 

(a) ‘‘Separate Right-of-Way’’

The characteristics that qualify a 

project as having ‘‘a substantial portion’’

in separate right-of-way are not selfexplanatory. We might define 

‘‘substantial’’ either as some minimum 

fraction of the project length or as a 

performance based determination of 

whether the separate right-of-way is 

substantial. We believe that the purpose 

of a separate right-of-way is generally to 

reduce trip times and improve 

reliability for transit passengers. 

Therefore, a ‘‘substantial’’ separate 

right-of-way could be defined as one 

that results in a significant travel time 

reduction along the physical extent of 

the project. For example, if end-to-end 

trip time is reduced by some percentage, 

say 20 percent, the separate right-of-way 

could be considered ‘‘substantial’’ and 

the project would be eligible no matter 

what percent of the project was in a 

separate right-of-way. 

(b) ‘‘Substantial Investment’’

It seems clear from the language of 

SAFETEA–LU, referring to a 

‘‘substantial investment’’ and ‘‘corridor’’

that the Small Starts program is not 

intended to fund single stations or buy 

a few additional transit vehicles, but to 

fund corridor-based projects that are 

more comprehensive in nature. A 

thoughtful definition here will be 

important to prevent the Small Starts 

program from becoming an adjunct to 

the bus and rail capital-grants programs 

that agencies use for routine 

reinvestment in and expansion of transit 

systems. In response, ‘‘substantial 

investment—might be defined as some 

minimum project cost or cost per mile 

of the proposed project. An alternative 

strategy would be to define it in terms 

of a minimum scope of the project—

providing for elements that together 

represent a comprehensive package of 

improvements. 

The statutory language specifically 

references a variety of project features 

including park-and-ride lots, transit 

stations, bus arrival and departure 

signage, traffic signal priority/preemption, off board fare collection, and 

advanced bus technologies, among 

others, that could indicate that a project 

constitutes a ‘‘substantial’’ investment. 

One approach would be to determine 

whether a project contains several of 

these project elements that have the 

effect of constituting a comprehensive 

package of physical and service 

improvements in a defined corridor, the 

project would be considered eligible. 

Since each of these potential project 

elements has a different purpose and 

effect, we do not believe that all Small 

Starts projects need to have all of the 

specified elements. Rather, the mix of 

project elements should respond 

specifically to the problems or 

opportunities presented in the corridor. 

For instance, a project that is intended 

to speed up peak period bus service in 

a congested corridor might be required 

to include several improvements, such 

as signal priority/pre-emption, queue 

jumpers, multi-door boarding and fare 

pre-payment, that effectively result in 

faster bus speeds. Projects with other 

goals could have a different mix of 

project elements as long as they 

represent a comprehensive attempt to 

solve the problems or respond to the 

opportunities presented in the corridor. 

Another potential way to ensure that 

Small Starts projects contain a 

comprehensive package of 

improvements would be to impose a 

multi-year period from the date the 

project requests entry into project 

development, in which the project 

sponsor could not request additional 

Small Starts funds for the same corridor. 

This would prevent projects from using 

the Small Starts program for 

miscellaneous bus system 

improvements that do not represent a 

‘‘substantial’’ corridor investment and 

would also prevent the subdividing of 

New Starts projects as discussed below. 

A ‘‘defined corridor’’ might be 

defined as narrowly as a single street or 

as broadly as a geographic section of the 

metropolitan area. A more 

comprehensive definition might be 

derived from the travel patterns 

established on the current transit 

system—as in ‘‘the travel corridor 

connecting residents of the northeastern 

suburbs to downtown.’’ Still another 

definition might be based on the bus 

route(s) operating on a single arterial 

street or highway, or the rail line(s) 

operating on a single right of way, along 

with their branches. 

(c) Subdividing New Starts Projects 

Project sponsors might elect to 

subdivide a traditional New Starts 

project into two or more Small Starts 

projects in order to qualify for the 

simplified evaluation and rating 

process. This possibility is not 

addressed in the language of SAFETEA–

LU, but the possibility clearly exists for 

larger projects to be segmented or 

phased into development as separate 

Small Starts projects. This may or may 

not be desirable. It may be sensible to 

build some Small Starts projects in 

phases over a longer period of time. If 

each of those phases represents a valid 

Small Starts project, it may be justified 

that the Small Starts funding be utilized. 

However, it is probably undesirable for 

large projects that would otherwise be 

built entirely at the same time to be 

redefined as several Small Starts 

projects. At least three reasons suggest 

that this subdividing strategy is 

undesirable. First a small number of 

subdivided New Starts projects could 

quickly deplete the Small Starts funding 

allocation, thereby making the Small 

Starts option unavailable to projects 

more consistent with the purpose of the 

Small Starts allocation. Second, costly 

New Starts projects ought to undergo 

the full New Starts evaluation rather 

than the simpler evaluation reserved for 

smaller projects with lower costs and 

less risk. Third, FTA oversight resources 

would be stretched even further by the 

proliferation of artificially subdivided 

projects. 

If it is determined that separate 

phases of larger projects should not be 

able to use Small Starts funds, we could 

introduce an eligibility requirement that 

all potential Small Starts projects in a 

single corridor be considered 

simultaneously for eligibility. We could 

ensure that even if a Small Starts project 

is to be built in stages, the 

comprehensive plan for the corridor 

meets the eligibility criteria for a Small 

Starts project and be evaluated and 

rated as a comprehensive program of 

improvements. If the comprehensive 

corridor improvement plan exceeds the 

Small Starts cost criterion, the project 

should then be evaluated and rated as 

a traditional New Starts project. 

(d) Small Starts as the Initial Service 

Offering 

Given the relatively low cost of Small 

Starts projects, some project sponsors 

might propose a Small Starts project as 

a way of initiating transit service in 

previously unserved areas. That strategy 

increases risk, however, if the transit 

market has not yet been sufficiently 

developed in the planned service area. 

Further, the strategy seems inconsistent 

with the purpose of the Small Starts 

program—to provide higher-quality 

service than is available from 

conventional bus routes. Consequently, 

we might establish a minimum-currentridership requirement—say 1,000 riders 

per average weekday in the immediate 

corridor—to screen out proposals for 

corridors where transit markets are not 

yet sufficiently developed. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4867 

Questions 

We invite comment on our current 

thinking regarding the project eligibility 

for the Small Starts category of the New 

Starts program: 

1. What portion of the project should 

be in a separate right-of-way to qualify 

for funding under the Small Starts 

eligibility criteria? Should this 

determination be based on length or on 

performance? 

2. How might we interpret the 

requirement that a project represent a 

‘‘substantial investment’’? 

3. How might we ensure that a Small 

Starts project be in a ‘‘defined 

corridor’’? 

4. Should we try to prevent traditional 

New Starts projects from being divided 

into two or more Small Starts projects? 

If so, in what ways might we prevent 

this from happening? 

5. Should we establish a minimum 

ridership requirement to ensure that 

Small Starts projects are used to 

improve the quality of service for 

existing transit markets rather than 

represent the first transit service offered 

to potentially new transit markets? If 

not, how can a project demonstrate need 

for investment? 

IV. Evaluation and Ratings 

SAFETEA–LU section 3011(e)(2) 

requires that the Secretary of 

Transportation provide funding 

assistance to a proposed project under 

this new Small Starts category only if 

the Secretary finds that the project is: 

(A) Based on the results of planning 

and alternatives analysis; 

(B) Justified based on a review of its 

public transportation supportive land 

use policies, cost effectiveness, and 

effect on local economic development; 

and 

(C) Supported by an acceptable degree 

of local financial commitment. 

The statute expands on the 

justification required in paragraph (B), 

requiring that the Secretary make the 

following determinations: 

• The degree to which the project is 

consistent with local land use policies 

and is likely to achieve local 

development goals; 

• The cost effectiveness of the project 

at the time of the initiation of revenue 

service; 

• The degree to which a project will 

have a positive effect on local economic 

development; 

• The reliability of the forecasting 

methods used to estimate costs and 

ridership associated with the project; 

and 

• Any other factors that the Secretary 

determines appropriate to make funding 

decisions. 

The SAFETEA–LU provisions for the 

evaluation of proposed Small Starts 

projects raise several issues. These 

include the framework for the 

evaluation; the specific measures used 

in the evaluation; and scaling of the 

evaluation approach for Small Starts 

projects of different size, cost, and 

complexity. 

(a) Evaluation Framework 

At least two options exist for the 

framework used to organize the 

evaluation measures and synthesize the 

findings for individual projects. The 

first would be an extension of the 

framework used for New Starts projects 

described in the December 2000 Final 

Rule on Major Capital Investment 

Projects (Title 49; Vol 6; 49 CFR 611.1), 

adjusted to add and delete the specific 

measures listed in SAFETEA–LU. The 

second would adopt a framework 

designed both to implement the Small 

Starts evaluation criteria specified by 

SAFETEA–LU and to organize the 

measures in a way which we believe 

supports an informative, analytical 

discussion of the project and its merits 

for Small Starts funding. 

Option 1—Extension of the Evaluation 

Framework for New Starts 

The framework that we currently use 

to evaluate New Starts projects 

considers each candidate project from 

two separate perspectives: the project’s 

‘‘justification’’ and local financial 

commitment proposed by its sponsor. 

Figure 1 illustrates one way in which 

the current framework could be adapted 

to the evaluation of Small Starts. 

Currently, ‘‘justification’’ considers a 

broad array of criteria but is based 

chiefly on two: cost effectiveness (50 

percent of the justification rating) and 

land use (50 percent). Cost effectiveness 

addresses the trade-off between the 

capital, operating, and maintenance 

costs of the project and the mobility 

benefits that it is expected to produce. 

Land use addresses the extent to which 

the land-use setting for the project 

would promote a successful project—

both in terms of the transit orientation 

of current land use and the policies 

adopted locally to foster transit 

orientation in future development. For 

Small Starts, we might respond to 

SAFETEA–LU direction by simply 

adding an economic-development 

criterion and a forecast-reliability 

criterion to the existing definition of the 

justification perspective. As we do 

currently for New Starts projects, we 

could assign a rating for each of the now 

four components (cost effectiveness, 

land use, economic development, and 

forecast reliability) and compute an 

overall justification rating as a weighted 

average of the individual ratings. Given 

that we expect far more applications 

than awards and the intense scrutiny 

and interest in cost-effectiveness of 

recommended projects among various 

participants in federal funding 

recommendations (e.g., Congress, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), the General Accounting Office 

(GAO), and others), it may be desirable 

to continue to assign roughly half of the 

‘‘justification’’ weighting to the costeffectiveness component, perhaps 

allocating the other half equally across 

the land use, economic development, 

and reliability criteria. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
4868 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Currently, local financial commitment 

is defined for New Starts in terms of the 

strength of the financial plan for the 

capital costs of the proposed project (50 

percent of the financial rating), the 

strength of the financial plan for 

operating and maintaining the entire 

transit system including the proposed 

project (30 percent), and the level of 

non-New-Starts funding proposed by 

the sponsor (20 percent). We compute 

an overall rating on local financial 

commitment as the weighted average of 

the individual ratings on these three 

criteria. Application of these three 

criteria, augmented by a new measure to 

reflect the reliability of the revenue and 

cost forecasts, might provide a sufficient 

framework for the evaluation of Small 

Starts as well. 

Option 2—Development of a Broader 

Framework 

For some time, we have been 

considering ways to provide a better 

framework for the assessment of major 

investment projects. The current 

approach, while consistent with current 

laws, tends to focus attention on the 

measures themselves, rather than 

promoting a thoughtful consideration of 

project merit. To address these 

concerns, a second option would be to 

broaden the perspectives we use to 

evaluate proposed projects, re-organize 

the evaluation criteria within these 

perspectives, and add a brief, clearly 

written narrative that synthesizes the 

insights available from various measures 

into the best possible case for the project 

as a candidate for Small Starts funding. 

Together, the evaluation measures and 

the narrative case for the project might 

consider: 

• The nature of the problem/ 

opportunity—because meritorious 

transit projects emerge from efforts to 

solve transportation problems and 

respond to important opportunities to 

improve mobility and support economic 

development; 

• The effectiveness of the project as a 

response—because meritorious transit 

projects increase mobility for existing 

and new transit riders, preserve and 

expand mobility for transit dependents, 

and support economic development; 

• The cost-effectiveness of the 

required investment—because 

meritorious projects generate benefits 

that are commensurate with their 

capital, operating, and maintenance 

costs; 

• The strength of the local financial 

commitment—because financially 

sound projects draw on capital and 

operating funding sources that are 

readily available given reasonable 

expectations of revenue streams and 

acknowledgment of competing uses for 

the funds; and 

• Risk in the forecasts and in the 

evaluation measures—because informed 

decision-making requires an 

understanding of any major 

uncertainties in information used to 

evaluate the project including land use 

forecasts, land use policy intentions, 

ridership forecasts, cost estimates, and 

other assumptions and forecasts. 

We believe that an evaluation 

framework comprising these five 

perspectives would provide a natural 

and logical place for each of the criteria 

specified in SAFETEA–LU. Cost 

effectiveness and local financial 

commitment are themselves two of the 

perspectives. Economic development 

would be a principal component of the 

effectiveness perspective. Land use 

policies and the reliability of ridership 

and cost forecasts would be central 

elements of the uncertainties 

perspective. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP30JA06.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4869 

Figure 2 provides an overview of the 

framework presented as Option 2 for the 

evaluation of Small Starts projects. The 

framework could examine separately the 

merits and the financial plan for the 

proposed project, as well as factor in the 

risks associated with the reliability of 

the data. Project merit could depend on 

the weighted results of project 

evaluation from three distinct 

perspectives: The nature of the 

problems/opportunities, the 

effectiveness of the project in addressing 

the problems/opportunities, and the 

cost-effectiveness of the necessary 

investment in capital, operating, and 

maintenance costs. Given that we expect 

far more applications than awards and 

the intense scrutiny and interest at the 

federal level in funding cost-effective 

projects, it may be desirable to continue 

to assign roughly half of the projectmerit weighting to the cost-effectiveness 

component, perhaps allocating the other 

half equally across the problems/ 

opportunities and effectiveness criteria. 

In the evaluation of effectiveness and 

cost effectiveness, the basis for 

comparison for a proposed project might 

appropriately depend on the nature of 

the proposal. For projects that do not 

involve construction of a new guideway, 

the baseline might be current transit 

services in the corridor. For projects that 

include a new guideway, the baseline 

might be similar service levels provided 

by buses operating on the same or 

nearby streets and/or highways, and 

serving a comparable set of stations. 

Regardless of the specifics, the 

timeframe for the comparison of 

ridership, mobility benefits, and costeffectiveness would be the year of 

opening of the proposed Small Starts 

project. 

Financial capacity could depend on 

the weighted results of financial 

analysis from three perspectives—the 

soundness of the capital funding plan, 

the soundness of the operating/ 

maintenance funding plan, and the 

proposed non-New-Starts share of the 

project—with weights equal to those 

used currently for New Starts 

evaluations. 

Risk could reflect the levels of 

uncertainty present in the information 

used to develop each of the component 

ratings for project merit and local 

financial commitment. Consequently, 

each component rating would be 

accompanied by an indicator of its 

reliability. The risk measures might be 

based on (1) the comparability of cost 

estimates and ridership forecasts to peer 

projects both locally and nationally, (2) 

the steps that the project sponsor has 

taken—including data collection, 

sensitivity testing, and peer reviews—to 

identify and minimize uncertainties, 

and (3) the performance of the project 

sponsor in delivering previous transit 

projects that met forecasts of costs and 

ridership. 

The evaluation framework might 

include an analytical discussion of the 

project and its performance against the 

evaluation criteria, providing direct 

answers to several key questions: 

• What is the problem? 

• What project is proposed in 

response? 

• What are its costs? 

• How well does it address the 

problem? 

• Is it worth the investment? 

• Can the project sponsor and other 

funding sources afford it? 

• What are the trade-offs versus other 

alternatives? 

• Where are the large uncertainties? 

This discussion would ensure that the 

evaluation rested as much on well 

stated insights into the merits of the 

project as on the mechanics of the 

evaluation measures themselves. We 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP30JA06.005</GPH>
4870 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

might use the case for the project to 

support project advancement or funding 

decisions for marginally rated projects. 

Baseline Alternative 

Virtually from the beginning of the 

New Starts program, FTA has required 

that the benefits and costs of the 

proposed New Starts project be assessed 

versus a baseline alternative defined as 

the best that can be done without 

building a new fixed guideway. The 

purpose of the baseline alternative has 

been to distill the benefits (and costs) of 

the proposed New Starts project from 

the benefits achieved through low-cost 

improvements such as route 

realignments, increases in service 

frequency, park-and-ride lots, signal 

preemption and other low-cost 

improvements that could have 

significant benefits, but which could be 

achieved without the significant cost of 

a New Starts project’s infrastructure. 

The baseline alternative has proven to 

be essential in properly accounting for 

benefits and costs of traditional New 

Starts projects. A secondary benefit is 

that it allows FTA to better evaluate 

projects fairly. In essence, a consistently 

defined baseline alternative prevents 

regions with good existing transit 

service from being disadvantaged 

relative to areas with poor existing 

service in the competition for New 

Starts funds. 

For the Small Starts program, a 

baseline alternative may be less 

important in both accurately 

determining the costs and benefits of 

some projects and establishing a level 

playing field for evaluations across the 

country. History has shown the need for 

a baseline for larger projects now 

eligible for Small Starts funding, but a 

baseline alternative may not be 

necessary for certain kinds of projects 

based on their costs or other 

characteristics. 

(b) Specific Evaluation Measures 

Regardless of the framework that 

emerges, each criterion will require 

specific evaluation measures. In 

principle, the measures should be 

accurate indicators of the performance 

of proposed projects, be readily 

computed by project sponsors, be 

transit-mode-neutral, and be free of 

inherent biases that would distort the 

level playing field that we try to 

maintain for all project sponsors. 

A particular challenge is the 

appropriate inclusion of land use in the 

evaluation. Land use might usefully 

play a role in two parts of the evaluation 

framework: as part of the economicdevelopment criterion and as part of the 

risk assessment. Our current evaluation 

of New Starts projects employs land use 

measures (current land use, plans and 

policies, and the track record of those 

plans and policies) that effectively 

address the risk perspective: The 

measures indicate the transitfriendliness of the project corridor, both 

now and in the future, to indicate the 

extent to which the proposed project 

would be implemented in a setting 

conducive to its success. However, 

because current land use and plans/ 

policies do not measure the benefits 

generated by the proposed project, they 

do not address the anticipated 

development benefits from the project. 

The absence of measures of economicdevelopment benefits is the result of our 

continuing difficulties in finding 

methods for predicting development 

impacts with sufficient reliability for 

use in New Starts evaluation. These 

difficulties extend to Small Starts 

evaluation as well. Further, because 

SAFETEA–LU introduces a separate 

economic-development criterion, the 

potential role for land use as a measure 

of development benefits becomes even 

less evident. A distinction between 

land-use development and economic 

development seems elusive. 

Consequently, an appropriate strategy 

might be to define ‘‘land-use/economic 

development’’ as a measure of project 

effectiveness and to define ‘‘transitorientation of land use’’ as a measure of 

risk inherent in both the mobility 

benefits and the land-use/economic 

development benefits. 

Nature of the Problem/Opportunity 

New Starts projects are almost always 

intended to solve specific transportation 

problems, or take advantage of 

opportunities to improve transportation 

services, or support economic 

development. For this reason, the most 

useful starting point for evaluation of 

proposed transportation investments 

may be the nature and severity of the 

problems/opportunities the proposed 

projects are designed to address. Such a 

criterion might rate very highly projects 

designed to address clearly identifiable 

and particularly severe mobility 

problems, while rating more moderately 

those projects that take advantage of 

specific opportunities to improve 

service, but are not in corridors with a 

particular mobility problem. 

An immediate question, then, is what 

kinds of problems/opportunities is the 

Small Starts program intended to 

address. Both the New Starts program 

and the SAFETEA–LU provisions for 

Small Starts both emphasize cost 

effectiveness and support for economic/ 

land use development. Mobility benefits 

are implicit in cost effectiveness 

because our cost effectiveness measure 

has, since its inception, compared costs 

with some indicator of mobility benefits 

(initially new transit trips and, since 

2001, user benefits). Consequently, 

measures to represent the nature of the 

problem or opportunity addressed by a 

proposed Small Starts project ought to 

reflect economic development and 

mobility. Useful measures for economic 

development might include vacancy 

rates, the value of land parcels 

compared to the value of current 

improvements on those parcels, and 

similar measures of development 

conditions in the corridor of interest. 

Useful measures for mobility might 

include current bus travel speeds in the 

immediate corridor, current highway 

speeds on principal arterials in the 

corridor, and projected speeds in the 

future—perhaps in 10 years. 

Effectiveness 

Small Starts projects are likely to 

produce a wide variety of benefits that 

are candidate measures of their 

performance. SAFETEA–LU calls out 

two kinds of benefits: economic/landuse development specifically and 

mobility improvement implicitly 

through cost-effectiveness. 

Predicting economic development 

impacts of transit improvements—

particularly the types of improvements 

anticipated to be funded through the 

Small Starts program—is a particular 

challenge. No predictive tools are 

available in standard practice and 

development of new tools is infeasible 

in the short run. Consequently, the bestavailable measures of likely economic 

development/land-use benefits may be 

derived from the circumstances in 

which the projects would be 

implemented rather than from forecasts 

of their specific development impacts. A 

survey of available research on the 

development impacts of transit suggests 

that increased accessibility and 

permanence of the transit investment 

are the primary transit-related drivers of 

development. Those project-related 

characteristics, plus indicators of the 

availability of land for development or 

redevelopment, may provide a workable 

representation of likely development 

benefits. Specific measures might be (1) 

current land-use conditions, (2) 

development plans and policies, (3) the 

economic development climate in the 

corridor and region, (4) the projectrelated change in transit accessibility for 

developable areas in the corridor, and 

(5) the economic lifespan of new transit 

facilities proximate to those developable 

areas. 

The measure of mobility benefits 

ought to capture as many benefits as 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4871 

possible. Currently for New Starts 

projects, we define ‘‘user benefits’’ to 

include all changes in mobility that are 

measured by local ridership-forecasting 

methods and define the scope of those 

benefits to include both existing and 

new transit riders. (The definition also 

includes benefits to users of the 

highway system but measurement of 

those benefits has been precluded by the 

insufficient state of the practice for 

predicting changes in highway speeds.) 

Consequently, the user-benefits measure 

credits transit projects with reductions 

in transit travel times (including time 

spent walking, waiting, transferring, and 

riding in transit vehicles), any other 

service characteristics (such as the 

number of transfers) included in local 

forecasting methods, and the availability 

of multiple competitive travel options, 

again as represented by local forecasting 

methods. The user-benefits measure is 

also defined to give appropriate credit 

for other project characteristics that 

improve the quality of transit service 

including changes in reliability, span of 

service, safety and security, passenger 

stations, passenger information, 

permanence of the facilities, and other 

characteristics not represented by travel 

times and costs. Unfortunately, these 

harder-to-measure impacts of transit 

improvements are rarely measured 

explicitly in local travel models and are 

instead represented—very roughly—as 

lump-sum differences (transit-modespecific ‘‘constants’’) in the 

attractiveness of different transit modes 

(bus, light rail, express bus, commuter 

rail, and so forth). Further, the state of 

the practice in ridership forecasting 

makes difficult the task of quantifying 

these effects in urban areas where a 

variety of transit modes exists today and 

provides no information on these effects 

in urban areas where the transit system 

includes bus service only. Most 

unfortunately, these hard-to-measure 

effects may be central to the merits of 

smaller projects that may not produce 

large changes in travel times. For 

example, we may specify standard 

values for the benefits generated by the 

various non-travel-time improvements 

introduced by a proposed Small Starts 

project. For example, we might define 

passenger stations to provide the 

equivalent of M minutes of travel time 

savings for each rider, an exclusive 

guideway N minutes per passenger-mile 

of equivalent savings, and all-day highquality service P minutes per rider. We 

would then employ these standard 

values as default measures of benefits 

for metropolitan areas introducing a 

new transit mode. To maintain a level 

playing field for project evaluation, we 

might also use the standard values as 

limits on the estimated values of these 

benefits in metropolitan areas that 

already have the mode in question. 

FTA’s ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter dated 

April 29, 2005, which addressed 

changes in New Starts ratings, stated 

that FTA had decided to postpone the 

introduction of mode-specific constants 

for new guideway modes to an area. The 

creation of the Small Starts program has 

prompted reconsideration of the 

application of these constants. 

Given the key role that transit plays 

in the lives of travelers who rely on it 

for basic mobility, we might also 

include an indicator of the extent to 

which a proposed project improves 

mobility for transit dependent residents 

of the urban area. A straightforward 

measure might be the fraction of total 

mobility benefits that accrues to 

travelers in the lowest economic stratum 

(usually household income or autoownership) used in the local ridershipforecasting methods, normalized by the 

fraction of all trips made by residents of 

that stratum. 

Cost-Effectiveness 

Since the inception of the transit 

major capital investment program, we 

have employed a cost effectiveness 

measure and have translated its 

computed value for a project into a costeffectiveness rating for that project using 

a set of breakpoints (that is, a computed 

value between X and Y obtains a 

‘‘Medium’’ rating). Traditionally, we 

have computed the cost-effectiveness of 

New Starts projects as annualized 

capital, operating, and maintenance 

costs of the project per unit of 

transportation benefits, all compared to 

a non-guideway baseline alternative. We 

currently use the transit-user-benefits 

measure to capture the full range of 

quantifiable transportation benefits of 

proposed projects. A broader costeffectiveness measure might add nontransportation benefits—economic 

development/land-use and mobility 

benefits to transit dependents, for Small 

Starts—to the effectiveness side of the 

calculation. In addition to the difficulty 

in quantifying non-transportation 

benefits such as economic development 

and land use, another complication is 

the need to avoid double-counting in 

the calculation of benefits applied in the 

cost effectiveness measure. 

Its role is to compare a careful 

accounting of costs with a careful 

accounting of benefits. The inclusion of 

measures that represent different 

manifestations of the same benefit 

would distort the benefits accounting. 

This problem occurs for mobility 

improvements and economic 

development/land-use: a review of the 

available research shows that transitrelated changes in land values and 

consequent increases in development 

are largely the result of the accessibility 

improvements and apparent degree of 

permanence of a transit project. We 

contend that these impacts are already 

counted in the user benefits measure of 

mobility improvements and that they 

should not be counted a second time in 

the form of consequent economic 

development/land-use impacts. To the 

extent that some economic 

development/land-use benefits are 

independent of mobility and 

permanence, large uncertainties would 

occur in attempts to include those 

benefits in the cost-effectiveness 

calculation while avoiding doublecounting of the main effects. 

Consequently, a more tractable 

approach might be to make allowances 

for these uncounted development 

benefits in the way that we translate 

values of the cost-effectiveness measure 

into cost-effectiveness ratings for 

projects. For example, if adding a new 

class of benefits to the cost-effectiveness 

measure proves unworkable, we could 

adjust the cost-effectiveness breakpoints 

to account for the existence and likely 

magnitude of those benefits. 

Local Financial Commitment 

The financial evaluation measures 

currently used for New Starts projects 

provide a useful starting point for 

consideration of possible Small Starts 

measures. The New Starts measures 

include the strength of the financial 

plan for non-New Starts funding of the 

project’s capital costs, the strength of 

the financial plan for non-New Starts 

funding of the entire local transit system 

once the project is in place, and the 

non-New Starts funding proposed by the 

project sponsor. SAFETEA–LU specifies 

that financial commitment for Small 

Starts projects shall be evaluated 

‘‘within the project timetable.’’

Therefore, a possible adaptation of the 

current measures might be to adjust the 

New Starts financial evaluation 

measures for Small Starts to reflect the 

shorter timeframe ending with the 

opening year of the proposed project. 

Risk 

There is inherent risk and uncertainty 

in project evaluation. The ratings 

assigned to a project are based on 

information, assumptions and forecasts 

that often include uncertainty in the 

predictions of eventual project 

performance. The statutory language 

makes it clear that the evaluation of 

Small Starts projects is to consider the 

reliability of the forecasting methods 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
4872 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

used to estimate costs and ridership 

(note that SAFETEA–LU also included 

this language for New Starts projects). 

Since SAFETEA–LU requires that the 

financial and cost-effectiveness 

measures be evaluated based on near 

term forecasts for Small Starts projects, 

some of the forecasting risk may be 

reduced. Uncertainties clearly remain, 

however. Therefore, in principle, the 

evaluation framework would include a 

specific risk indicator for each 

evaluation criterion. Some options for 

incorporating risk and uncertainty are 

described below. 

The risk associated with measures 

related to the nature and severity of the 

problem or opportunity could be based 

on an evaluation of peer projects—

projects that have been implemented in 

similar conditions and their apparent 

success in addressing similar problems 

and/or seizing the opportunities that 

motivated project sponsors. 

The risk inherent in measures of 

project merit could be evaluated based 

on (1) the current land use and land-use 

policies, (2) the soundness of forecasting 

tools and data used to predict ridership 

and mobility benefits including steps to 

reduce uncertainty through peer reviews 

and other quality control procedures, (3) 

comparisons of ridership forecasts 

against peer projects—similar projects 

in similar settings, with particular risk 

assigned to projects without any peers, 

and (4) the track record of the project 

sponsor with benefits forecasts for 

previous transit projects. 

The risk associated with a costeffectiveness measure would necessarily 

include the uncertainties in both the 

project-effectiveness measures and the 

cost estimates. The effectiveness risk 

could be quantified with the measures 

outline above. The cost risk could be 

based on (1) the soundness of costestimating procedures including steps to 

reduce risk through peer reviews and 

other quality-control efforts, (2) 

comparisons of the cost estimates 

against peer projects, and (3) the track 

record of the project sponsor with cost 

estimates for previous transit projects. 

A project finance risk measure could 

be based on apparent availability of 

non-federal funds and the ability of the 

financial plan to withstand a specific 

percentage increase in capital costs of 

the project. This type of evaluation is 

currently included within the financial 

evaluation of New Starts projects, but 

may be better as a separate financial risk 

measure. 

(c) Project Ratings 

SAFETEA–LU specifies that projects 

are to be rated as high, medium-high, 

medium, medium-low, and low, based 

on the analysis of both project merit and 

local financial commitment and that to 

receive a funding recommendation, 

projects should be both meritorious and 

have an acceptable degree of local 

financial commitment. 

Currently for New Starts projects, we 

develop separate ratings for project 

merit (‘‘justification’’) and local 

financial commitment, and then derive 

from these component ratings an overall 

project rating using decision rules. 

These decision rules ensure that a 

project does not get a very high or an 

acceptable rating unless the ratings for 

both project merit (‘‘justification’’) and 

financial commitment are high or 

acceptable respectively. A similar rating 

process could be developed for Small 

Starts. 

Because risk may be an important 

element of ratings for Small Starts 

projects, a strategy may be needed to 

incorporate risk measures into the 

ratings process. It seems clear that each 

risk measure ought to be associated as 

directly as possible with the evaluation 

measure to which it applies; 

uncertainties in the cost estimate, for 

example, ought to affect whichever 

evaluation criteria rely on measures 

computed from the cost estimate. A 

variety of strategies might be used to 

adjust the rating for each criterion to 

reflect the risk measure—including 

probability weightings and Monte Carlo 

simulations analogous to those used 

currently in FTA-sponsored ‘‘risk 

assessments’’ of the capital cost 

estimates for New Starts projects. A 

simpler strategy, however, might be to 

use the risk indicators to decide the 

outcome for ratings at the margins: a 

project rating whose measures produce 

a result at the breakpoint between 

Medium and Medium-High, for 

example, might be rated Medium if the 

associated risk indicator suggests large 

uncertainties and Medium-High if the 

risk indicator suggests minimal 

uncertainties. 

(d) Scaling the Evaluation for Projects of 

Different Size 

Small Starts projects may range in 

size from non-guideway improvements 

costing $20 million, or perhaps less, to 

new guideways costing just under $250 

million. Given this relatively wide range 

of cost and potential for complexity and 

risk, different approaches might be 

appropriate for projects of different 

scale. We recognize that the effort 

expended by project sponsors to 

develop the necessary information—and 

by FTA to ensure the reliability of that 

information—should be matched to the 

size and complexity of the proposed 

project. Sponsors of relatively simple 

projects with very low costs—

particularly those with no guideway 

construction like arterial BRT or 

commuter rail service on an existing 

high quality rail line, for example—

should be able to make the case for their 

projects with less effort than sponsors of 

relatively more complex and expensive 

Small Starts projects. Lower levels of 

effort should result from lower levels of 

complexity, detail, and rigor but not 

from a reduced ability to address the 

full range of evaluation criteria. 

Given the relatively straightforward 

nature of the financial measures, most of 

the differences in evaluation methods 

might occur in the evaluation of project 

merit (justification)—particularly in the 

methods used to compute mobility 

benefits and, therefore, costeffectiveness. Several options are 

available for evaluation of project merit 

for Small Starts proposals: (1) 

Application of the same evaluation 

methods for all projects regardless of 

scale; (2) development of simplified 

analytical procedures for smaller 

projects; and (3) defining for small 

projects a set of conditions—effectively 

‘‘warrants’’ based on project scope and 

implementation setting—within which 

proposals are automatically deemed to 

have acceptable levels of project merit. 

Option 1—Same Methods, Regardless of 

Scale 

A travel forecasting capability is 

available in most metropolitan areas, 

usually including a forecasting 

component for transit ridership. In 

many urban areas with recent 

experience in forecasting for New Starts 

projects, these forecasting procedures 

are ready for use in ridership forecasting 

for Small Starts planning. The 

procedures consider project impacts on 

all travelers in the region, predict 

changes in both travel mode and transit 

routing, and provide forecasts for 

individual travel markets. In areas that 

do not have ridership forecasting 

procedures of acceptable quality, the 

necessary refinements can be done with 

appropriate data within a year or so. 

Therefore, one available option is to 

require that the benefits of all Small 

Starts proposals, regardless of cost or 

complexity, are forecast with traditional 

methods that attempt to capture the full 

range of impacts that a project would 

have on the quality of transit service in 

a corridor. 

Option 2—Simplified Methods Where 

Possible 

At least some Small Starts proposals 

are likely to affect only a very specific 

set of travelers and may therefore not 

require the comprehensive analysis of 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4873 

transportation impacts provided by 

traditional ridership forecasting 

methods. For these proposals, a 

simplified analysis may be sufficient to 

quantify the mobility benefits and 

provide insights into the merits of the 

project. A simplified analysis might rest 

on data rather than models, spreadsheet 

computations rather than sophisticated 

software, and limited geographic scope 

rather than region-wide analysis. For 

example, a very simple Small Starts 

project might be the conversion of an 

existing bus route into a streetcar line 

with passenger stations, dynamic 

passenger information, off-board fare 

collection, traffic signal priorities, some 

reservation of existing traffic lanes, and 

headway improvements. A sufficient 

analysis of the mobility benefits of this 

project might be based on on/off counts, 

a limited on-board survey, an estimate 

of stop-to-stop reductions in wait times 

and travel times, and a spreadsheetbased calculation of travel-time savings 

(and whatever representation we 

determine is appropriate of the hard-toquantify benefits of better passenger 

facilities, schedule information, and 

other project elements). To the extent 

that this limited analysis identifies 

mobility benefits sufficient for the 

project to compete well for Small Starts 

funding, the approach may be all that is 

needed to quantify those benefits. To 

the extent that another project has a 

broader set of impacts—because of 

service changes on a large number of 

bus routes throughout a corridor, for 

example—then the project sponsor 

might elect to use the traditional 

forecasting methods to capture the 

broader set of benefits. 

Option 3—Development of ‘‘Warrants’’

for Smaller Projects 

We are considering specifying a class 

of low-cost improvements that are 

‘‘warranted’’ to be cost effective based 

on their definition and the environment 

in which they are to be applied. This 

strategy would be for us to distinguish 

and evaluate differently those projects 

that are very low cost and that employ 

only those elements that are 

demonstrably effective and costeffective within specified maximum 

prices and minimum usage (ridership). 

Justification for these ‘‘Very Small 

Starts’’ would be based simply on the 

scope/cost of the project and salient 

characteristics of the setting in which it 

would be implemented. Justification 

would require documentation only of 

(1) the scope elements of the project, (2) 

the unit costs for each scope element, 

(3) total cost, and (4) existing ridership 

in the immediate corridor. This strategy 

would avoid a requirement that project 

sponsors attempt to quantify benefits for 

low-cost projects comprising only those 

elements that have been demonstrated 

elsewhere to be effective and costeffective transit improvements. 

This concept might be extended to 

Small Starts projects that add a new 

guideway along with the low-cost 

elements that would otherwise qualify a 

project for Very Small Starts treatment. 

A low-cost guideway project, for 

example, might also include the 

stations, signal pre-emption, 

‘‘branding,’’ and other elements whose 

benefits are difficult to quantify. Again, 

this strategy would avoid the substantial 

difficulties inherent in attempting to 

calculate the benefits of low-cost project 

elements with real but hard-to-quantify 

impacts on the quality and 

attractiveness of transit services. 

Questions 

6. How should the evaluation 

framework for New Starts be changed or 

adapted for Small Starts projects? 

7. How should the baseline alternative 

be defined? 

8. How might FTA evaluate economic 

development and land use as distinct 

and separate measures? 

9. Are there other measures of 

effectiveness that should be considered? 

10. Is it desirable for FTA to attempt 

to incorporate other measures of 

effectiveness besides mobility when 

evaluating cost-effectiveness? If so, what 

measures might be incorporated and in 

what manner? 

11. Should mode-specific constants be 

allowed in the travel forecasts? If so, 

how should they be applied? 

12. How might FTA incorporate risk 

and uncertainty into project evaluation 

for Small Starts? 

13. What weights should FTA apply 

to each measure? 

14. Should the FTA make a 

distinction in the way we evaluate 

Small Starts projects of different total 

project costs and scope? 

V. Procedures for Planning and Project 

Development 

SAFETEA–LU specifies some 

different procedures to be used by Small 

Starts projects in the planning and 

project development process compared 

to New Starts projects. Similar to the 

requirement for traditional New Starts, 

funding for Small Starts requires the 

Secretary to find that the project has 

been based on the results of planning 

and an alternatives analysis. Unlike 

traditional New Starts, Small Starts 

need only be approved to advance from 

planning and alternatives analysis to 

project development and construction; 

no approval to enter final design is 

required. A project construction grant 

agreement can be used to provide 

funding for the Small Start for future 

years. The main issues addressed in this 

section include defining alternatives 

analysis in a way that is appropriate to 

the scale of small projects, the basis for 

our decision to allow entry into project 

development, and linking alternatives 

analysis and the environmental process. 

Alternatives Analysis 

While larger projects require a 

number of alternatives to be considered 

in an alternatives analysis to assess the 

numerous tradeoffs in costs, benefits, 

and impacts, the consideration of Small 

Starts often implies that fewer useful 

alternatives exist and in some cases, 

there may only be two alternatives, one 

representing the Small Start and the 

other today’s service levels. 

Nevertheless, the number of alternatives 

considered must continue to meet the 

requirements of NEPA, good planning 

practices, and proper identification of 

project costs and benefits for funding 

recommendations. 

Just as there could be a simpler 

evaluation approach applied to simpler 

projects described as Very Small Starts 

in the evaluation section above, a very 

simple alternatives analysis and 

subsequent evaluation process could be 

used when Very Small Starts are being 

considered. Projects that are Very Small 

Starts could be able to utilize a very 

simple project definition-based 

alternatives analysis process. The key 

elements of the highly simplified AA 

report could be: 

• Clear description and assessment of 

the opportunity to improve 

transportation service in the corridor. 

• Clearly defined proposed project 

description designed to take advantage 

of the opportunity to improve transit 

service in the corridor, including a 

clearly defined scope, list of project 

elements, their associated costs and 

expected effect on transit service in the 

corridor. 

• Comparison of the Very Small Start 

only to conditions today for a subset of 

the required measures. Mobility benefits 

and cost-effectiveness could be assumed 

to be met if the proposed project only 

includes pre-approved elements. 

• A determination of whether or not 

the project sponsor can afford the 

capital and operating costs of the 

alternatives. 

• A well supported explanation for 

the choice of a proposed project that 

includes an analysis of the likelihood of 

the proposed project achieving the 

project goals and any risks. 

• A plan for implementing and 

operating the proposed project that 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
4874 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

addresses the project sponsor’s 

technical capability to build, operate 

and maintain the proposed project. 

Where the proposed New Starts 

project fits the eligibility criteria for a 

Small Start but cannot qualify as a Very 

Small Starts project, a simplified 

alternatives analysis could be allowed. 

Compared to Very Small Starts this type 

of alternatives analysis would include a 

more detailed analysis of the mobility 

benefits and cost-effectiveness of the 

proposed project. They could also entail 

consideration of a broader range of 

alternatives because project alternatives 

could cost as much as $250 million. As 

costs rise, considerations of different 

length alternatives may give insights 

into what could be significant 

differences in the tradeoffs of costs, 

benefits and impacts. Even without 

other build alternatives, examination of 

an alternative other than existing system 

service could be required if the Small 

Starts project is proposed where no 

transit service currently exists, so that 

the benefits of the investment itself can 

be distinguished from the simple 

realignment of service. Similarly, 

assessing a third alternative with the 

non-fixed-guideway elements of a fixed 

guideway project would permit the 

proper identification of the benefits and 

costs accruing from the guideway 

investment itself. 

The features of this simplified AA 

report could be: 

• Clear description and assessment of 

the opportunity to improve 

transportation service in the corridor. 

• Clearly defined set of transportation 

alternatives to take advantage of the 

opportunity to improve transit service. 

In cases where the proposed project 

does not involve a new fixed guideway, 

the alternatives analysis could consider 

a minimum of two alternatives as 

follows: (1) The no-build (existing 

conditions), (2) a Very Small Starts 

alternative if the proposed project 

includes a guideway or there is no 

existing service in the corridor, (3) the 

proposed Small Start, and (4) any useful 

length alternatives to the proposed 

project. 

• Analysis of the effectiveness of the 

alternatives. 

• Comparison of the benefits and 

costs of the alternatives. 

• A determination of whether or not 

the project sponsor can afford the costs 

of the alternatives. 

• A well supported choice of a 

proposed project that includes an 

analysis of the likelihood of the 

proposed project achieving the project 

goals and any risks. 

• A plan for implementing and 

operating the proposed project that 

addresses the project sponsor’s 

technical capability to build, operate 

and maintain the proposed project. 

We would use the alternatives 

analysis report or subsequent AA/DEIS 

to rate and evaluate the proposed Small 

Starts projects. 

Another type of alternatives analysis 

could occur when a traditional New 

Starts project is one of the alternatives 

and the locally preferred alternative is 

eligible for Small Starts funds. Projects 

that result from a traditional alternatives 

analysis will have to adjust their 

evaluation measures to reflect opening 

year rather than the forecast year. 

Entry Into Project Development 

We currently envision reviewing the 

following items soon after they are 

developed during the alternatives 

analysis in order to support a decision 

to allow entry into project development: 

• Alternatives analysis initiation 

report that includes a clear and concise 

description of the problem or 

opportunity to improve service in the 

corridor, the initial list of alternatives 

and their key elements, and the 

proposed approach to evaluating the 

alternatives. 

• Interim report that specifies the 

alternatives to be evaluated and the 

methods that were used to forecast the 

mobility benefits. 

• Final report and choice of locally 

preferred alternative. 

• Local adoption of the proposed 

project and financial plan into the 

fiscally constrained, conforming (if in a 

non-attainment or maintenance area) 

plan and Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP). 

Projects that are eligible for Small 

Starts funds and achieve acceptable 

ratings for the Small Starts criteria could 

be admitted into project development. 

We are considering including the before 

and after study requirement in the 

construction grant agreement as a prerequisite for receiving funding for Small 

Starts projects. Like traditional New 

Starts, documenting the predicted and 

actual scope, cost, and ridership of 

projects built using Small Starts funds 

will allow us as well as project sponsors 

to evaluate this information and develop 

in the future better approaches to 

forecast the costs and benefits of Small 

Starts. The results of before and after 

studies would also assist us in 

responding to the requirement in 

SAFETEA–LU that we consider the 

reliability of forecasting methods used 

to estimate ridership and costs when we 

consider funding proposed Small Starts 

projects. 

Linking Alternatives Analysis to the 

Environmental Process 

Currently alternatives analyses can be 

conducted concurrently with NEPA or 

in advance of formal NEPA activities 

that begin with a Notice of Intent. 

Problems have arisen when alternatives 

analyses are conducted in advance of 

formal NEPA processes for a variety of 

reasons, including the lack of proper 

consideration of environmental factors 

and lack of response by resource 

agencies. Alternatives analyses 

conducted concurrently with NEPA 

sometimes do not have the level of 

detail necessary for mitigation of 

impacts, requiring a supplemental 

document. An option that we are 

considering that could address these 

problems by efficiently and effectively 

linking alternatives analyses to NEPA is 

a recognized procedure known as ‘‘early 

scoping.’’ The concept of early scoping 

was explained by the President’s 

Council on Environmental Quality in its 

‘‘40 Questions’’ guidance, as follows: 

‘‘Use of Scoping Before Notice of Intent to 

Prepare EIS. Can the scoping process be used 

in connection with preparation of an 

environmental assessment, i.e., before both 

the decision to proceed with an EIS and 

publication of a notice of intent? 

A. Yes. Scoping can be a useful tool for 

discovering alternatives to a proposal, or 

significant impacts that may have been 

overlooked. In cases where an environmental 

assessment is being prepared to help an 

agency decide whether to prepare an EIS, 

useful information might result from early 

participation by other agencies and the 

public in a scoping process. 

The regulations state that the scoping 

process is to be preceded by a Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS. But that is 

only the minimum requirement. Scoping may 

be initiated earlier, as long as there is 

appropriate public notice and enough 

information available on the proposal so that 

the public and relevant agencies can 

participate effectively. 

However, scoping that is done before the 

assessment, and in aid of its preparation, 

cannot substitute for the normal scoping 

process after publication of the NOI, unless 

the earlier public notice stated clearly that 

this possibility was under consideration, and 

the NOI expressly provides that written 

comments on the scope of alternatives and 

impacts will still be considered.’’

Council on Environmental Quality, Forty 

Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Regulations, 46 FR 18026, 18030 (1981) 

(Answer to Question No. 13). 

Projects developed through the Small 

Starts program are not likely to generate 

significant effects on the quality of the 

human environment. Nevertheless, 

potential environmental effects 

associated with Small Starts proposals 

cannot be overlooked. In order to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4875 

accommodate applicable environmental 

review requirements and to integrate 

such requirements efficiently into Small 

Starts proposals, we are considering 

requiring the use of ‘‘early scoping’’ as 

an adjunct to Alternatives Analysis. 

Although early scoping is not a 

substitute for the standard scoping 

process, in combination with required 

notification initiating the environmental 

review process, early scoping would 

serve to signal the beginning of the 

NEPA process and provide a forum in 

which participating and cooperating 

agencies, as well as the public, could be 

actively and purposefully engaged. 

Early scoping links transportation 

planning (Alternatives Analysis) with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

process in a way that promotes 

consideration of required environmental 

factors without pre-determining the 

kind of documentation that has to be 

prepared. This approach is entirely 

consistent with regulations 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, as well as the 

planning and environmental review 

provisions of SAFETEA–LU. 

It is likely that many Very Small 

Starts proposals will qualify as 

Categorical Exclusions, in which case 

sponsors may petition to be exempted 

from the early scoping requirement. A 

Small Starts sponsor may still choose to 

avail itself of the practice of combining 

traditional ‘‘scoping’’ (following 

issuance of a Notice of Intent) with 

Alternatives Analysis when preparation 

of an Environmental Impact Statement 

is anticipated. 

Questions 

15. Should there be a distinction in 

the alternatives analysis requirements 

for Small Starts compared to traditional 

New Starts? 

16. Should there be a distinction in 

the alternatives analysis requirements 

for Very Small Starts compared to larger 

projects that qualify as Small Starts? 

17. Within an alternatives analysis, 

what other alternatives should be 

considered in addition to the Small 

Start and the existing service 

alternatives? 

18. What should be the key elements 

or features of a highly simplified or 

simplified alternatives analysis? 

19. Should Small Starts projects also 

be required to perform a Before and 

After study? 

20. Should FTA mandate an early 

scoping approach for those alternatives 

analyses that are not being conducted 

concurrently with the formal NEPA 

process? Are there other approaches that 

should be considered for better linking 

alternatives analysis and NEPA? 

VI. Regulatory Notices 

A. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to assure meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that may have a substantial, 

direct effect on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We invite State 

and local governments with an interest 

in this rulemaking to comment on the 

effect that adoption of specific Small 

Starts proposals may have on State or 

local governments. 

B. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 requires 

agencies to assure meaningful and 

timely input from Indian tribal 

government representatives in the 

development of rules that ‘‘significantly 

or uniquely affect’’ Indian communities 

and that impose ‘‘substantial and direct 

compliance costs’’ on such 

communities. We invite Indian tribal 

governments to provide comments on 

the effect that adoption of specific small 

starts proposals may have on Indian 

communities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), we must 

consider whether a proposed rule would 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘Small entities’’ include small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations under 50,000. If your 

business or organization is a small 

entity and if adoption of specific small 

starts proposals could have a significant 

economic impact on your operations, 

please submit a comment to explain 

how and to what extent your business 

or organization could be affected. 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal 

agencies to consider the consequences 

of major Federal actions and that they 

prepare a detailed statement on actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. Interested parties 

are invited to address the potential 

environmental impacts of the small 

starts proposals contained in this 

ANPRM. We are particularly interested 

in comments about the costs and 

benefits that specific small starts 

proposals may have on the human and 

natural environment, or on alternative 

actions the agency could take that 

would provide beneficial impacts. 

E. Statutory/Legal Authority for This 

Rulemaking 

This rulemaking is issued under 

authority of section 3011 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which 

requires the Secretary of Transportation 

to prescribe regulations for capital 

investment projects funded under 49 

U.S.C. § 5309 with a federal share of less 

than $75,000,000 and a total cost of less 

than $250,000,000. 

F. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking will likely be 

considered a significant regulatory 

action under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 and the Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures of the Department of 

Transportation (44 FR 11032). This 

ANPRM was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

E.O. 12866 requires agencies to 

regulate in the ‘‘most cost-effective 

manner,’’ to make a ‘‘reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs,’’

and to develop regulations that ‘‘impose 

the least burden on society.’’ We 

therefore request comments, including 

specific data if possible, concerning the 

costs and benefits of the specific small 

starts proposals contained in this 

ANPRM. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, no person is required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB control 

number. This ANPRM does not propose 

any new information collection 

burdens. 

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The RIN number contained in the 

heading of this document may be used 

to cross-reference this action with the 

Unified Agenda. 

I. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form for all comments 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
4876 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comments (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477) or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC this 24th day of 

January, 2006. 

Sandra K. Bushue, 

Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 06–870 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–U 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 060111007–6007–01; I.D. 

010906A] 

RIN 0648–AT56 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch 

Sharing Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve 

and implement changes to the Pacific 

Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (Plan) for 

the International Pacific Halibut 

Commission′s (IPHC or Commission) 

regulatory Area 2A off Washington, 

Oregon, and California (Area 2A). NMFS 

proposes to update the tribal season in 

the Plan to reflect recent IPHC season 

date-setting trends. NMFS also proposes 

to implement the portions of the Plan 

and management measures that are not 

implemented through the IPHC, which 

includes the sport fishery management 

measures for Area 2A, the flexible 

inseason management provisions in 

Area 2A, fishery election in Area 2A, 

and Area 2A non-treaty commercial 

fishery closed areas. NMFS proposes to 

codify all but the sport fishery 

management measures for Area 2A, at 

50 CFR part 300, subpart E. These 

actions are intended to enhance the 

conservation of Pacific halibut, to 

protect yelloweye rockfish and other 

overfished groundfish species from 

incidental catch in the halibut fisheries, 

and to provide greater angler 

opportunity where available. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

changes to the Plan and on the proposed 

domestic Area 2A halibut management 

measures must be received no later than 

5 p.m., local time on February 14, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Plan, 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

and/or Categorical Exclusion (CE) are 

available from D. Robert Lohn, Regional 

Administrator, Northwest Region, 

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 

Seattle, WA 98115–0070. Electronic 

copies of the Plan, including proposed 

changes for 2006, and of the CE and 

draft RIR/IRFA are also available at the 

NMFS Northwest Region Web site: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov, click on 

‘‘Groundfish & Halibut.’’

You may submit comments on the 

proposed Plan and domestic Area 2A 

halibut management measures or 

supporting documents, identified by 

010906A, by any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: 

PHalibut2006.nwr@noaa.gov. Include 

the I.D. number 

010906A in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: D. Robert Lohn, 

Administrator, Northwest Region, 

NMFS, Attn: Jamie Goen, 7600 Sand 

Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115–

0070. 

• Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Jamie 

Goen. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Goen or Yvonne deReynier 

(Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206–

526–6150, fax: 206–526–6736 or e-mail: 

jamie.goen@noaa.gov or 

yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut 

Act) of 1982, at 16 U.S.C. 773c, gives the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

general responsibility for implementing 

the provisions of the Halibut 

Convention between the United States 

and Canada (Halibut Convention). It 

requires the Secretary to adopt 

regulations as may be necessary to carry 

out the purposes and objectives of the 

Halibut Convention and the Halibut Act. 

Section 773c of the Halibut Act 

authorizes the regional fishery 

management councils to develop 

regulations governing the Pacific halibut 

catch in their corresponding U.S. 

Convention waters that are in addition 

to, but not in conflict with, regulations 

of the IPHC. Each year between 1988 

and 1995, the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Pacific Council) 

had developed a catch sharing plan in 

accordance with the Halibut Act to 

allocate the total allowable catch (TAC) 

of Pacific halibut between treaty Indian 

and non-treaty harvesters and among 

non-treaty commercial and sport 

fisheries in Area 2A. 

In 1995, NMFS implemented the 

Pacific Council-recommended long-term 

Plan (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995). In 

each of the intervening years between 

1995 and the present, minor revisions to 

the Plan have been made to adjust for 

the changing needs of the fisheries. The 

Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A 

TAC plus 25,000 lb (11.3 mt) to 

Washington treaty Indian tribes in 

Subarea 2A–1 and 65 percent minus 

25,000 lb (11.3 mt) to non-Indian 

fisheries in Area 2A. The allocation to 

non-Indian fisheries is divided into 

three shares, with the Washington sport 

fishery (north of the Columbia River) 

receiving 36.6 percent, the Oregon/ 

California sport fishery receiving 31.7 

percent, and the commercial fishery 

receiving 31.7 percent. The commercial 

fishery is further divided into a directed 

commercial fishery that is allocated 85 

percent of the commercial allocation 

and an incidental catch in the salmon 

troll fishery that is allocated 15 percent 

of the commercial allocation. The 

directed commercial fishery in Area 2A 

is confined to southern Washington 

(south of 46°53.30′ N. lat.), Oregon, and 

California. North of 46°53.30′ N. lat. (Pt. 

Chehalis), the Plan allows for incidental 

halibut retention in the primary limited 

entry longline sablefish fishery when 

the overall Area 2A TAC is above 

900,000 lb (408.2 mt). The Plan also 

divides the sport fisheries into seven 

geographic subareas, each with separate 

allocations, seasons, and bag limits. 

The Area 2A TAC will be set by the 

IPHC at its annual meeting on January 

16–20, 2006, in Bellevue, WA. NMFS 

requests public comments on the Pacific 

Council′s recommended modifications 

to the Plan and the proposed domestic 

fishing regulations by February 14, 

2006. This allows the public the 

opportunity to consider the final Area 

2A TAC before submitting comments on 

the proposed rule. The States of 

Washington and Oregon will conduct 

public workshops shortly after the IPHC 

meeting to obtain input on the sport 

season dates. After the Area 2A TAC is 

known and after NMFS reviews public 

comments and comments from the 

states, NMFS will issue a final rule for 

the Area 2A Pacific halibut fisheries 

concurrent with the IPHC regulations 

for the 2006 Pacific halibut fisheries. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS