76038 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 

1Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2006–26383] 

Publication of Interim Guidance on the 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement (CMAQ) Program 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of publication of interim 

guidance; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is 

to: (1) Announce the publication of 

interim CMAQ guidance; and (2) solicit 

public comment on the contents of the 

interim guidance. Sections 1101, 1103 

and 1808 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

(Pub. L. 109–59, Aug. 10, 2005) 

amended the Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 

Program, and authorizes $8.6 billion to 

support the CMAQ program in 2005– 

2009. The interim guidance went into 

effect October 31, 2006; however, we 

will review all comments submitted to 

the docket and will modify the guidance 

as necessary or appropriate. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 20, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Koontz, Office of Natural and 

Human Environment, (202) 366–2076, 

michael.koontz@dot.gov; or Diane Liff 

(202) 366–6203 or Harold Aikens (202) 

366–1373, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Federal Highway Administration, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., 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 

You may submit or retrieve comments 

online through the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s Document 

Management System (DMS) at: http:// 

dms.dot.gov/submit. The DMS 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 notice may 

be downloaded from the Office of the 

Federal Register’s home page at http:// 

www.archives.gov and the Government 

Printing Office’s Web site at http:// 

www.access.gpo.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in a Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (70 FR 

19477), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

An electronic version of the interim 

CMAQ guidance may be downloaded 

from the FHWA Web page at: http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ 

cmaq06gm.htm. It is also attached for 

reference below. 

Background 

The CMAQ program was created by 

the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 

102–240, Dec. 18, 1991) and continued 

under the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (TEA–21) (Pub. L. 105– 

178; Oct. 1998). Through 2005, the 

program supported nearly 16,000 

transportation projects across the 

country. In the most recent 

authorization of the Federal-aid 

highway program, Congress amended 

the CMAQ program, and authorized 

funding to support the CMAQ program 

in 2005–2009 (sections 1101, 1103 and 

1808 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. 

L. 109–59, Aug. 10, 2005). More than 

$8.6 billion are authorized over the fiveyear program (2005–2009), with annual 

authorization amounts increasing each 

year during this period. This interim 

guidance updates and replaces previous 

program guidance issued in 1999. It 

focuses primarily on project eligibility 

provisions, and identifies the types of 

projects that are eligible for CMAQ 

support. It also provides information on 

how CMAQ apportionments are 

calculated and the geographic areas 

where CMAQ funds can be used, 

discusses the project selection process 

and requirements for analyzing 

emissions benefits from potential 

projects as part of the selection process, 

and examines Federal, State and 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) program administration 

responsibilities. The interim guidance 

went into effect October 31, 2006; 

however, we will review all comments 

submitted to the docket and will modify 

the guidance as necessary or 

appropriate. 

This interim guidance includes 

comprehensive discussions and 

direction on a host of new or 

highlighted areas under SAFETEA–LU, 

and in particular emphasizes diesel 

engine retrofits and cost-effective 

congestion mitigation activities as 

priorities for CMAQ expenditures. It 

also provides relative cost-effectiveness 

data on various eligible project types to 

help inform the CMAQ project selection 

process. 

We invite the public to submit 

comments on this interim guidance. We 

plan to issue a final guidance after we 

have evaluated all the comments 

received on this interim guidance. 

(Authority: Sections 1101, 1103 and 1808 of 

Pub. L. 109–59) 

Issued on: December 7, 2006. 

J. Richard Capka, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

The Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program 

under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users; Interim Program 

Guidance 

October 31, 2006. 

The guidance contained in this document 

is intended to be nonbinding, except insofar 

as it references existing statutory 

requirements, and should not be construed as 

rules of general applicability and legal effect 

or notices of proposed rulemaking. 

I. Introduction 

The CMAQ program was created 

under the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) 

of 1991, continued under the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA–21), and reauthorized by 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU).1 Over 

$8.6 billion is authorized over the fiveyear program (2005–2009), with annual 

authorization amounts increasing each 

year during this period. Through 2005, 

the program has supported nearly 

16,000 transportation projects across the 

country. 

This guidance replaces the April 1999 

version and provides information on the 

CMAQ program, including: 

• Authorization levels and 

apportionment factors specific to the 

SAFETEA–LU 

• Flexibility and transferability 

provisions available to States 

• Geographic area eligibility for 

CMAQ funds 

• Project eligibility information 

• Project selection processes 

• Program administration 

Appendices 1–3 provide updated 

statutory language relating to the CMAQ 

program. Appendix 4 illustrates the 

comparative cost-effectiveness of 

potential CMAQ projects. Appendix 5 

provides supplemental information on 

diesel retrofit projects. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76039 

2 23 U.S.C. 105 (SAFETEA–LU section 1104). 

3 23 U.S.C. § 126. 

4 23 U.S.C. § 110(c). 

5 23 U.S.C. § 132(a) (SAFETEA–LU section 1119). 

Information on the current annual 

apportionment to each State and an 

electronic version of this guidance are 

available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

environment/cmaqpgs/index.htm. 

II. Program Purpose 

The purpose of the CMAQ program is 

to fund transportation projects or 

programs that will contribute to 

attainment or maintenance of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide 

(CO), and particulate matter (PM). 

The CMAQ program supports two 

important goals of the Department of 

Transportation: Improving air quality 

and relieving congestion. While these 

goals are not new elements of the 

program, they are strengthened in a new 

provision added to the CMAQ statute by 

SAFETEA–LU, establishing priority 

consideration for cost-effective emission 

reduction and congestion mitigation 

activities when using CMAQ funding. 

Reducing pollution and other adverse 

environmental effects of transportation 

projects and transportation system 

inefficiency have been long-standing 

objectives of the Department of 

Transportation. The strategic plans for 

the Department of Transportation and 

for the Federal Highway Administration 

both include performance measures 

specifically focused on reducing air 

pollution from transportation facilities. 

The CMAQ program provides funding 

for a broad array of tools to accomplish 

these goals. By choosing to fund a 

CMAQ project, a State or local 

government can improve air quality and 

make progress towards achieving 

attainment status and ensuring 

compliance with the transportation 

conformity provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. 

Reducing congestion is also a key 

objective of the Department of 

Transportation, and one that has gained 

increasing attention in the past several 

years. The cost of congestion, which 

negatively affects the U.S. economy, 

quality of life, and air quality, has risen 

dramatically in the last 25 years despite 

record levels of transportation 

investment. Some economists estimate 

that the overall cost of congestion to the 

U.S. economy approaches $200 billion a 

year. As a result, the Secretary of 

Transportation recently issued a 

National Strategy to Reduce Congestion 

on America’s Transportation Network 

that aims to meaningfully reduce the 

economic and social costs of congestion 

on our nation’s highways and in other 

transportation facilities. This strategy 

can be found at: http://isddc.dot.gov/ 

OLPFiles/OST/012988.pdf. 

Since congestion relief projects also 

reduce idling, the negative emissions 

impacts of ‘‘stop and go’’ driving, and 

the number of vehicles on the road, they 

have a corollary benefit of improving air 

quality. Based on their emissions 

reductions, these types of projects, 

including investments in improved 

system pricing and operations, are 

eligible for CMAQ funding. The 

Department believes State and local 

governments can simultaneously reduce 

the costly impacts of congestion while 

also improving air quality. 

III. Authorization Levels Under the 

SAFETEA–LU 

A. Authorization Levels 

Table 1 shows the SAFETEA–LU 

CMAQ authorization levels by fiscal 

year. The CMAQ funds will be 

apportioned to States each year based 

upon the apportionment factors 

discussed in Section V. 

TABLE 1.—SAFETEA–LU CMAQ 

AUTHORIZATION LEVELS

Fiscal year authorization 

Amount 

authorized 

(dollars) 

FY 2005 .......................... 1,667,255,304 

FY 2006 .......................... 1,694,101,866 

FY 2007 .......................... 1,721,380,718 

FY 2008 .......................... 1,749,098,821 

FY 2009 .......................... 1,777,263,247 

B. Equity Bonus 

Similar to the minimum guarantee 

under the TEA–21, the Equity Bonus in 

SAFETEA–LU provides additional 

funding beyond the authorized levels so 

that each State receives a minimum 

percentage of its gas tax receipts back in 

the form of Federal-aid funds.2

C. Transferability of CMAQ Funds 

Since transportation and 

environmental program priorities 

fluctuate, States may choose to transfer 

a limited portion of their CMAQ 

apportionment to the following Federalaid highway programs: Surface 

Transportation Program (STP), National 

Highway System (NHS), Highway 

Bridge Program (HBP), Interstate 

Maintenance (IM), Recreational Trails 

Program (RTP), and the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP). States 

may transfer CMAQ funds according to 

the following provision: An amount not 

to exceed 50 percent of the quantity of 

the State’s annual apportionment less 

the amount the State would have 

received if the CMAQ program had been 

authorized at $1,350,000,000.3 For 

example, if the annual national 

apportionment is $1.75 billion and a 

State receives $10 million more than it 

would have received if the national 

apportionment had been $1.35 billion, 

the State can transfer up to $5 million 

to other programs. Any transfer of such 

funds must still be obligated in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

The amount of transferable funds will 

differ each year and by State, depending 

on overall authorization levels. Each 

year, the FHWA will inform States how 

much, if any, CMAQ funding is 

transferable and will track this 

movement of CMAQ funds.4

States also may transfer CMAQ funds 

to other Federal agencies. The 

SAFETEA–LU provides additional 

flexibility to complete such transfers 

when the receiving Federal agency has 

entered into an agreement with the State 

to undertake an eligible Federal-aid 

project.5 These opportunities apply to 

projects that have met all CMAQ 

eligibility requirements prior to the 

transfer. 

D. CMAQ and Innovative Finance: State 

Infrastructure Bank (SIB) and Section 

129 Loans 

Projects with dedicated repayment 

streams, i.e., a consistent source of 

revenue, may be financed with loans 

through DOT’s innovative finance 

program as an alternative or supplement 

to CMAQ funding. 

State Infrastructure Banks are Statedirected programs that allow Federalaid funds to be lent to sponsors of 

eligible Federal-aid projects (any project 

under Title 23 or 49 is eligible). SIBs 

may be capitalized with several Federalaid highway apportionments including 

the National Highway System Program, 

the Surface Transportation Program, the 

Highway Bridge Program, and the 

Equity Bonus program. (Note: CMAQ 

may not be used to capitalize a SIB, but 

SIB funds may be used to finance 

CMAQ projects). State funds also may 

be used to capitalize the SIB. The State 

then receives repayments over time that 

can be directed toward other 

transportation projects. For example, 

New York State was successful in 

utilizing its SIB to implement two truck 

stop electrification projects along the 

New York State Thruway. 

Section 129 loans (23 U.S.C. 129(a)(7)) 

allow states to use Federal-aid highway 

apportionments to make loans for 

projects with dedicated revenue streams 

(this is only applicable to highway, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76040 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 

6 23 U.S.C. 111(d) (SAFETEA–LU section 1412). 

7 23 U.S.C. 190 (SAFETEA–LU section 1602). 

8 23 U.S.C. 149(f)(3) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1808(d)). 

9 23 U.S.C. 149(f)(3)(B) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1808(d)). 

10 42 U.S.C. 7506 Section 176(c)(2)(B). 

bridge, tunnel, ferry boat, and ferry 

terminal projects). A Section 129 loan 

may be used to construct a truck stop 

electrification facility if the facility is 

located on the Interstate right-of-way.6

The SAFETEA–LU establishes a new 

SIB program under which all States are 

authorized to enter into cooperative 

agreements with the U.S. DOT to 

establish infrastructure revolving-funds 

eligible to be capitalized with Federal 

transportation funds.7 The key 

difference between a Section 129 loan 

and a SIB is that a Section 129 loan 

usually provides financing to an 

individual project and funding a SIB 

capitalizes a financial entity that can 

assist multiple projects. The two loan 

programs have similar maximum 

allowable terms established by Federal 

law: 

• Both public and private entities are 

eligible to be project sponsors 

• Repayments must begin within 5 

years of project completion 

• Maximum loan term is 30 years 

after project authorization (Section 129) 

or 30 years after first repayment (SIB) 

• Interest rate may be set by State, at 

or below market rates 

• Loans can only be made up to 80 

percent of eligible project costs (Section 

129). For SIBs, loans can be made up to 

100 percent of eligible project costs 

(although when the State first creates a 

SIB, it is required to contribute a nonFederal match of 20 percent) 

These innovative loan programs can 

increase the efficiency of States’

transportation investments and 

significantly leverage Federal resources 

by attracting non-Federal public and 

private investment, and provide greater 

flexibility to the States by allowing 

other types of project assistance in 

addition to grant assistance. This type of 

financing is important for new 

technologies or start-up businesses that 

may have difficulty finding financing in 

the private capital markets. In addition 

to SIBs and section 129 loans, the 

FHWA also administers the 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, 

which provides Federal credit 

assistance to large-scale projects greater 

than $50 million. 

The following example illustrates 

how a Section 129 loan could work to 

construct an idle-reduction facility on 

an Interstate right-of-way. A private 

party intends to build a stationary idlereduction facility, and seeks grant 

funding for it from the State DOT. The 

idle reduction facility will eventually 

earn a profit by charging user fees, but 

since the capital costs are high, the 

private party needs assistance with 

financing the initial construction. 

Instead of providing an outright grant, 

the State could offer a loan of Federalaid funds with flexible repayment 

terms. If the facility required $1 million 

for initial construction, the State could 

make a loan at five percent over fifteen 

years. The State could accelerate the 

payments if the facility were more 

successful than expected, and delay 

repayment if the facility failed to meet 

revenue targets. The State could also 

build in credits for additional emissions 

reductions, providing incentives for 

additional loans or grants to idle 

reduction projects. More information on 

the DOT’s innovative finance program is 

available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

innovativefinance/. 

IV. Priority for Use of CMAQ Funds 

The SAFETEA–LU directs States and 

MPOs to give priority to two categories 

of funding. First, to diesel retrofits, 

particularly where necessary to facilitate 

contract compliance, and other costeffective emission reduction activities, 

taking into consideration air quality and 

health effects. Second, priority is to be 

given to cost-effective congestion 

mitigation activities that provide air 

quality benefits.8 Appendix 4 illustrates 

the comparative cost-effectiveness of 

several potential CMAQ projects. Other 

projects also may be cost-effective. The 

priority provisions in the statute apply 

to the portion of CMAQ funds derived 

from the application of Sections 

104(b)(2)(B) and 104(b)(2)(C), i.e., the 

CMAQ apportionment formula. They do 

not apply to areas where CMAQ funding 

has been derived from the minimum 

apportionment provisions. 

Though the SAFETEA–LU establishes 

these CMAQ investment priorities, it 

also retains State and local agencies’

authority in project selection. The law 

maintains the existing roles and 

authorities of public agencies, and 

substantial shifts in local procedures are 

not required by the SAFETEA–LU.9

However, project selection should 

reflect the positive cost-effectiveness 

relationships highlighted in Appendix 

4. State and local transportation 

programs that implement a broad array 

of these cost-effective measures may 

record a more rapid rate of progress 

toward their clean air goals, since many 

of these endeavors generate immediate 

benefits. Local procedures that elevate 

the importance of these efforts in project 

selection—and rate them accordingly—

may accelerate the drive to air quality 

attainment. 

In addition to the SAFETEA–LU 

priority on cost-effectiveness, Section 

176(c) of the Clean Air Act 10 (CAA) 

requires that the FHWA and FTA ensure 

timely implementation of transportation 

control measures (TCMs) in applicable 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs). 

These and other CMAQ-eligible projects 

identified in approved SIPs must 

receive funding priority. 

The FHWA recommends that States 

and MPOs develop their transportation/ 

air quality programs using 

complementary measures that provide 

alternatives to single-occupant vehicle 

(SOV) travel while improving traffic 

flow through operational strategies and 

balancing supply and demand through 

pricing, parking management, 

regulatory, or other means. 

V. Annual Apportionments of CMAQ 

Funds to States 

A. CMAQ Apportionments 

Federal CMAQ funds are apportioned 

annually to each State according to the 

severity of its ozone and CO problem 

(see Appendix 2). The population of 

each county (based upon Census Bureau 

data) that is in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area for ozone and/or CO 

is weighted by multiplying by the 

appropriate factor listed in Table 2. PM 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

and former 1-hour areas, except those 

few 1-hour maintenance areas 

participating in Early Action Compacts, 

are not included in the apportionments. 

Note: CMAQ apportionments and CMAQ 

eligibility are two different things. Some 

areas in which CMAQ funds may be spent 

are not included in the apportionments (see 

Section VI.). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76041 

11 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1103(d)). 

12 23 U.S.C. 149(c). 

13 23 U.S.C. 149(b) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1808(a)). 

TABLE 2.—SAFETEA–LU CMAQ APPORTIONMENT FACTORS 11

Pollutant Classification at the time of annual apportionment Weighting factor 

Ozone (O3) or (CO) ................................................................. Maintenance (these areas had to be previously eligible as 

nonattainment areas—See Section VI.).

1.0. 

Ozone ...................................................................................... Subpart 1 (‘‘Basic’’) ............................................................... 1.0. 

Ozone ...................................................................................... Marginal ................................................................................. 1.0. 

Ozone ...................................................................................... Moderate ................................................................................ 1.1. 

Ozone ...................................................................................... Serious ................................................................................... 1.2. 

Ozone ...................................................................................... Severe ................................................................................... 1.3. 

Ozone ...................................................................................... Extreme ................................................................................. 1.4. 

CO ........................................................................................... Nonattainment ....................................................................... 1.0. 

Ozone and CO ........................................................................ Ozone nonattainment or maintenance and CO nonattainment or maintenance.1.2 × O3 factor. 

All States—minimum apportionment ....................................... 1⁄2 of 1 percent total annual apportionment of CMAQ funds N/A. 

CMAQ apportionments are calculated 

based on the nonattainment and 

maintenance areas that exist at the time 

of apportionment. Generally, 

apportionments are calculated prior to 

the beginning of each fiscal year. 

B. Area Designations: Attainment vs. 

Nonattainment 

Each State is guaranteed a minimum 

apportionment of one-half percent of the 

year’s total program funding, regardless 

of whether the State has any 

nonattainment or maintenance areas. 

These flexible funds or minimum 

apportionment funds can be used 

anywhere in the state for projects 

eligible for either CMAQ or the Surface 

Transportation Program (STP).12

The FHWA Budget Division identifies 

annual apportionments of CMAQ funds 

as either mandatory or flexible. All 

funding is considered mandatory for 

states with weighted populations 

yielding one-half percent or more of the 

authorized funds (based on the table 

above). Annual CMAQ funding 

apportioned through the application of 

Sections 104(b)(2)(B) and 104(b)(2)(C) 

must be used for projects in 

nonattainment/maintenance areas. 

States with weighted populations 

yielding at least some apportioned value 

but less than one-half percent of the 

authorized funds receive both 

mandatory and flexible funds to reach 

the minimum apportionment. For 

example, if a State’s weighted 

population yields two tenths of one 

percent of the authorized funds, it 

would receive two tenths of one percent 

of the national funds as mandatory 

funds, and three tenths of one percent 

as flexible funds. Thus, 40 percent of 

the State’s funds would be mandatory 

and 60 percent would be flexible. 

For States with no areas applicable to 

the apportionment table, their minimum 

apportionment, one-half percent, is all 

flexible funding. The FHWA reports the 

breakdown of mandatory and flexible 

funds by State in its fiscal year 

apportionment tables. 

C. Apportionments and State Allocation 

Notwithstanding the statutory formula 

for determining the apportionment 

amount, the State may use its CMAQ 

funds in any ozone, CO, or PM 

nonattainment or maintenance area. A 

State is under no statutory obligation to 

allocate CMAQ funds in the same way 

they are apportioned. States are 

encouraged to consult affected MPOs to 

determine regional and local CMAQ 

priorities and work with them to 

allocate funds accordingly. 

D. Federal Share and State/Local Match 

Requirements 

The Federal share for most eligible 

projects is generally 80 percent (90 

percent for projects on the Interstate 

System). Activities identified in 23 

U.S.C. 120(c) (See Appendix 3), 

including traffic control signalization, 

commuter carpooling and vanpooling, 

and signalization projects to provide 

priority for transit vehicles, may be 

funded at up to 100 percent Federal 

share if they meet the conditions of that 

section. 

Although not required for publicprivate partnerships (PPP) under the 

CMAQ program, State and local officials 

have the discretion to request a higher 

local match from the private sector 

partner. For example, project sponsors 

may find that a CMAQ PPP requiring a 

50 percent local match contribution is 

more appropriate than the standard 20 

percent required under Federal law. In 

addition, higher local matches for these 

efforts can leverage CMAQ funding and 

extend the program to a greater pool of 

projects. 

VI. Geographic Areas That Are Eligible 

To Use CMAQ Funds 

A. Eligible Areas 

CMAQ funds may be invested in all 

8-hour ozone, CO, and PM 

nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

Funds also may be spent in the few 

remaining1-hour ozone maintenance 

areas (these counties also have Early 

Action Compacts in place), since the 1- 

hour standard remains in effect for these 

areas. 

Funds also may be used for projects 

in proximity to nonattainment and 

maintenance areas if the benefits will be 

realized primarily within the 

nonattainment or maintenance area. The 

delineation of an area considered ‘‘in 

proximity’’ should be discussed with 

the FHWA and FTA field offices and 

elevated to headquarters if necessary. 

B. Maintenance Areas 

CMAQ funds may be invested in 

maintenance areas that have approved 

maintenance plans under CAA section 

175A. In States with ozone or CO 

maintenance areas but no 

nonattainment areas, mandatory CMAQ 

funds must be used in the maintenance 

areas. 

C. Maintenance Plan Requirement, 

SAFETEA–LU 

CMAQ funds may be invested in 

former 1-hour ozone areas that were not 

designated under the 8-hour standard 

but where the 1-hour standard has been 

revoked. Since these areas are required 

to file maintenance plans, they are 

considered eligible for CMAQ funding 

under provisions of the SAFETEA–

LU.13

D. Flexible Funds in PM Areas 

While States may use flexible CMAQ 

funding anywhere and for any CMAQor STP-eligible project (see V.B. on 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76042 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 

14 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. 15 23 U.S.C. 116. 

16 23 U.S.C. 149(b). 

17 23 U.S.C. 149(e). 

minimum apportionment), the FHWA 

encourages States and MPOs to evaluate 

the cost-effectiveness and benefits to 

public health of targeting flexible 

CMAQ funding to projects that reduce 

PM. Examples of such projects include 

implementing a diesel retrofit or idle 

reduction program, constructing freight/ 

intermodal transfer facilities, traffic 

signalization, or ITS projects that reduce 

congestion; paving dirt roads, and 

purchasing street sweeping equipment. 

See Appendix 4 for further costeffectiveness comparisons. 

VII. Project Eligibility Provisions 

A. Project Eligibility: General Conditions 

To be eligible for CMAQ funds, a 

project must be included in the MPO’s 

current transportation plan and TIP (or 

the current STIP in areas without an 

MPO). In nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, the project also must 

meet the conformity provisions 

contained in Section 176(c) of the Clean 

Air Act and the transportation 

conformity rule.14 In addition, all 

CMAQ-funded projects need to 

complete National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and 

meet basic eligibility requirements for 

funding under titles 23 and 49 of the 

United States Code. 

The following should guide CMAQ 

eligibility decisions: 

1. Capital Investment 

CMAQ funds may be used to establish 

new or expanded transportation projects 

or programs that reduce emissions, 

including capital investments in 

transportation infrastructure, congestion 

relief efforts, diesel engine retrofits, or 

other capital projects. 

2. Operating Assistance 

There are several general conditions 

that must be met for operating 

assistance to be eligible under the 

CMAQ program. 

a. Operating assistance is limited to 

new transit services, intermodal 

facilities, and travel demand 

management strategies (including traffic 

operation centers); and the incremental 

cost of expanding existing transit 

services. 

b. In using CMAQ funds for operating 

assistance, the intent is to help start up 

viable new transportation services that 

can demonstrate air quality benefits and 

eventually cover their costs as much as 

possible. Other funding sources should 

supplement and ultimately replace 

CMAQ funds for operating assistance, as 

these projects no longer represent 

additional, net air quality benefits but 

have become part of the baseline 

transportation network. 

c. Operating assistance includes all 

costs of providing new transportation 

services, including, but not limited to, 

labor, fuel, administrative costs, and 

maintenance. 

d. When CMAQ funds are used for 

operating assistance, non-Federal share 

requirements still apply. 

e. With the focus on start-up costs 

only, operating assistance under the 

CMAQ program is limited to three years. 

The provisions in 23 U.S.C. § 116 place 

responsibilities for maintenance on 

States.15 Since facility maintenance is 

akin to operations, three years of CMAQ 

assistance provides adequate incentive 

and flexibility while not creating a 

pattern of excessive or even perpetual 

support. Exceptions are listed below 

under VII.D.7 Travel Demand 

Management, VII.D.8 Public Education, 

and VII.D.10 Carpooling and 

Vanpooling. 

3. Emission Reduction 

Air quality improvement is defined by 

several distinct terms in 23 U.S.C. § 149. 

These terms include contribution to 

attainment, reduction in pollution, air 

quality benefits, and others. For 

purposes of this guidance, the FHWA 

uses emission reduction to represent 

this group of terms. CMAQ-invested 

projects or programs must reduce CO, 

ozone precursor (NOX and VOCs), PM, 

or PM precursor (e.g., NOX) emissions 

from transportation. These reductions 

must contribute to the area’s overall 

clean air strategy and can be 

demonstrated by the assessment that is 

required under this guidance. States and 

MPOs also may consider the ancillary 

benefits of eligible projects, including 

greenhouse gas reductions, congestion 

relief, safety, or other elements, when 

programming CMAQ funds, though 

such benefits do not alone establish 

eligibility. 

4. Planning and Project Development 

Activities in support of eligible 

projects also may be appropriate for 

CMAQ investments. Studies that are 

part of the project development pipeline 

(e.g., preliminary engineering) under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) are eligible for CMAQ support, 

as are FTA’s Alternatives Analyses. 

General studies that fall outside specific 

project development do not qualify for 

CMAQ funding. Examples of such 

efforts include major investment 

studies, commuter preference studies, 

modal market polls or surveys, transit 

master plans, and others. These 

activities are eligible for Federal 

planning funds. 

B. Projects Ineligible for CMAQ Funding 

The following projects are ineligible 

for CMAQ funding: 

1. Light-duty vehicle scrappage 

programs.16

2. Projects that add new capacity for 

SOVs are ineligible for CMAQ funding 

unless construction is limited to highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. 

3. Routine maintenance and 

rehabilitation projects (e.g., 

replacement-in-kind of track or other 

equipment, reconstruction of bridges, 

stations, and other facilities, and 

repaving or repairing roads) are 

ineligible for CMAQ funding as they 

only maintain existing levels of highway 

and transit service, and therefore do not 

reduce emissions. Other funding 

sources, such as STP and FTA’s Section 

5307 program, are available for such 

activities. 

4. Administrative costs of the CMAQ 

program may not be defrayed with 

program funds, e.g., support for a State’s 

‘‘CMAQ Project Management Office’’ is 

not eligible. 

5. Projects that do not meet the 

specific eligibility requirements of titles 

23 and 49 U.S.C. are ineligible for 

CMAQ funds. 

6. Stand-alone projects to purchase 

fuel. One exception is listed below in 

Section VII.D.3. 

C. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) 

In a PPP, a private or non-profit 

entity’s resources replace or supplement 

State or local funds and possibly a 

portion of the Federal-aid in a selected 

project. The PPP elements of the 

program have been refined over the last 

two transportation reauthorizations, and 

these partnerships have become a 

critical part of CMAQ.17

Partnerships must have a legal, 

written agreement in place between the 

public agency and the private or nonprofit entity before a CMAQ-funded 

project may be implemented. These 

agreements should be developed under 

relevant State contract law and should 

specify the intended use for CMAQ 

funding; the roles and responsibilities of 

the participating entities; and how the 

disposition of land, facilities, and 

equipment will be carried out should 

the original terms of the agreement be 

altered (e.g., due to insolvency, change 

in ownership, or other changes in the 

structure of the PPP). 

Public funds should not be invested 

where a strong public benefit cannot be 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76043 

18 23 U.S.C. 149(1)(A). 

19 23 U.S.C. 166(e) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1121(a)). The required rulemaking is under 

development by EPA and is expected to list Tier 2/ 

Bin 5—the average of the Tier 2 tailpipe emission 

standards—as the minimum level for low-emission 

certification under the HOV exception. 

demonstrated. Consequently, CMAQ 

funds must be devoted only to PPPs that 

benefit the general public by clearly 

reducing emissions, not for financing 

marginal projects. Consistent with the 

planning and project selection 

provisions of the Federal-aid highway 

program, the FHWA considers it 

essential that all interested parties have 

full, open, and timely access to the 

project selection process. 

There are several other statutory 

restrictions and special provisions on 

the use of CMAQ funds in PPPs. Eligible 

costs under this section may not include 

costs to fund an obligation imposed on 

private sector or non-profit entities 

under the CAA or any other Federal 

law. However, if the private or nonprofit entity is clearly exceeding its 

obligations under Federal law, CMAQ 

funds may be used for that incremental 

portion of the project. 

Eligible non-monetary activities that 

satisfy the non-Federal match 

requirements under the partnership 

provisions include the following: 

• Ownership or operation of land, 

facilities, or other physical assets. 

• Construction or project 

management. 

• Other forms of participation 

approved by the U.S. DOT. 

Sharing of total project costs, both 

capital and operating, is a critical 

element of a successful public-private 

venture, particularly if the private entity 

is expected to realize profits as part of 

the joint venture. State and local 

officials are urged to consider a full 

range of cost-sharing options when 

developing a PPP, including a larger 

State/local match than the usual 20 

percent required under Federal law. For 

detailed information on cost principles 

beyond the scope of this guidance, 

please consult OMB Circular A–87, 

which focuses on determining allowable 

costs for State, local, and tribal 

governments; and 49 CFR Part 18, 

which provides direction on 

administering Federal grants to State 

and local governments. 

D. Eligible Projects and Programs 

Eligibility information is provided 

below. Not all possible requests for 

CMAQ funding are covered—this 

section provides examples of activities 

eligible for CMAQ funds. 

1. Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs) 

Most of the TCMs included in Section 

108 of the CAA, listed below, are 

eligible for CMAQ funding. One CAA 

TCM, programs to encourage removal of 

pre-1980 light-duty vehicles, is 

specifically excluded from CMAQ 

eligibility.18

i. Programs for improved public 

transit; 

ii. Restriction of certain roads or lanes 

to, or construction of such roads or 

lanes for use by, passenger buses or 

HOV; 

iii. Employer-based transportation 

management plans, including 

incentives; 

iv. Trip-reduction ordinances; 

v. Traffic flow improvement programs 

that reduce emissions; ii.fringe and 

transportation corridor parking facilities 

serving multiple-occupancy vehicle 

programs or transit service; 

vii. Programs to limit or restrict 

vehicle use in downtown areas or other 

areas of emission concentration 

particularly during periods of peak use; 

viii. Programs for the provision of all 

forms of high-occupancy, shared-ride 

services; 

ix. Programs to limit portions of road 

surfaces or certain sections of the 

metropolitan area to the use of nonmotorized vehicles or pedestrian use, 

both as to time and place; 

x. Programs for secure bicycle storage 

facilities and other facilities, including 

bicycle lanes, for the convenience and 

protection of bicyclists, in both public 

and private areas; 

xi. Programs to control extended 

idling of vehicles; 

xii. Reducing emissions from extreme 

cold-start conditions; 

xiii. Employer-sponsored programs to 

permit flexible work schedules; 

xiv. Programs and ordinances to 

facilitate non-automobile travel, 

provision and utilization of mass transit, 

and to generally reduce the need for 

SOV travel, as part of transportation 

planning and development efforts of a 

locality, including programs and 

ordinances applicable to new shopping 

centers, special events, and other 

centers of vehicle activity; and 

xv. Programs for new construction 

and major reconstructions of paths, 

tracks, or areas solely for the use by 

pedestrian or other non-motorized 

means of transportation when 

economically feasible and in the public 

interest. 

2. Extreme Low-Temperature Cold Start 

Programs 

Projects intended to reduce emissions 

from extreme cold-start conditions are 

eligible for CMAQ funding. Such 

projects include retrofitting vehicles and 

fleets with water and oil heaters and 

installing electrical outlets and 

equipment in publicly-owned garages or 

fleet storage facilities (See Section VII.C. 

for a possible expansion to privatelyowned equipment and facilities). 

3. Alternative Fuels and Vehicles 

Fuel 

With the exception of Missouri, Iowa, 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, 

and Ohio, fuel costs are not an eligible 

expense as a stand-alone project. Only 

these seven states may use CMAQ funds 

to purchase alternative fuels as defined 

in section 301 of the 1992 Energy Policy 

Act (natural gas, ethanol, etc.) or 

biodiesel, assuming such projects meet 

other applicable eligibility requirements 

noted in Section VII.B. above. 

Establishing publicly-owned fueling 

facilities and other infrastructure 

needed to fuel alternative-fuel vehicles 

is an eligible expense, unless privatelyowned fueling stations are in place and 

reasonably accessible. Additionally, 

CMAQ funds may support converting a 

private fueling facility to support 

alternative fuels through a publicprivate partnership agreement (See 

Section VII.C.). 

Non-transit Vehicles 

CMAQ funds may be used to purchase 

publicly-owned alternative fuel 

vehicles, including passenger vehicles, 

refuse trucks, street cleaners, and others. 

Costs associated with converting fleets 

to run on alternative fuels are also 

eligible. When private vehicles are 

purchased, only the cost difference 

between the alternative fuel vehicles 

and comparable conventional fuel 

vehicles is eligible. Such vehicles 

should be fueled by one of the 

alternative fuels identified in section 

301 of the 1992 Energy Policy Act or 

biodiesel. 

Hybrid Vehicles 

Although not defined by the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992 as alternative fuel 

vehicles, certain hybrid vehicles that 

have lower emissions rates than their 

non-hybrid counterparts may be eligible 

for CMAQ investment. Hybrid passenger 

vehicles must meet EPA’s low emissions 

and energy efficiency requirements for 

certification under the HOV exception 

provisions of the SAFETEA–LU to be 

eligible for CMAQ funding.19

Projects involving heavier vehicles, 

including refuse haulers and delivery 

trucks, also may be appropriate for 

program support. Eligibility should be 

based on a comparison of the emissions 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76044 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 

20 23 U.S.C. 149(b)(6) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1808(b)(4)). 21 49 U.S.C. 5307. 

projections of these larger candidate 

vehicles and other comparable models. 

4. Congestion Reduction & Traffic Flow 

Improvements 

Traffic flow improvements may 

include the following: 

a. Traditional Improvements 

Traditional traffic flow improvements, 

such as the construction of roundabouts, 

HOV lanes, left-turn or other managed 

lanes, are eligible for CMAQ funding 

provided they demonstrate net 

emissions benefits. 

b. Intelligent Transportation Systems 

Intelligent Transportation Systems 

(ITS) projects, such as traffic signal 

synchronization projects, traffic 

management projects, and traveler 

information systems, can be effective in 

relieving traffic congestion, enhancing 

transit bus performance, and improving 

air quality. The following have the 

greatest potential for improving air 

quality: 

• Regional multi-modal traveler 

information systems 

• Traffic signal control systems 

• Freeway management systems 

• Electronic toll-collection systems 

• Transit management systems 

• Incident management programs 

A lengthier discussion of the benefits 

associated with various operational 

improvements can be found at: http:// 

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/program_areas/ 

programareas.htm 

c. Value/Congestion Pricing 

As part of its National Strategy 

referenced above, the Department 

broadly promotes highway congestion 

pricing and is also seeking an area-wide 

demonstration of the effectiveness of 

congestion pricing (along with other 

elements). Congestion pricing is a 

market-based mechanism that allows 

tolls to rise and fall depending on 

available capacity and demand. It has 

gained increasing attention and 

popularity in recent years following 

several highly successful facility 

demonstrations in the U.S. and several 

network wide demonstrations abroad. 

Tolls can be charged electronically, 

thereby eliminating the need for 

tollbooths. In addition to the benefits 

associated with reducing congestion, 

revenue is generated that can be used to 

pay for a wide range of transportation 

improvements, including Title 23- 

eligible transit services in the newly 

tolled corridor. 

Parking pricing can include time-ofday parking charges that reflect 

congested conditions. These strategies 

should be designed to influence tripmaking behavior and may include 

charges for using a parking facility at 

peak periods, or a range of employerbased parking cash-out policies that 

provide financial incentives to avoid 

parking or driving alone. Parking 

pricing integrated with other pricing 

strategies is encouraged. 

Pricing encompasses a variety of 

market-based approaches such as: 

• HOT lanes, or High Occupancy Toll 

lanes, on which variable tolls are 

charged to drivers of low-occupancy 

vehicles using High-Occupancy Vehicle 

(HOV) lanes, such as the ‘‘FasTrak’’

Lanes on I–15 in San Diego and the 

recently converted I–394 in Minneapolis 

in which prices vary dynamically every 

two minutes based on traffic conditions. 

• New variably tolled express lanes 

on existing toll-free facilities, such as 

the ‘‘91 Express Lanes’’ on State Route 

91 in Orange County, CA. 

• Variable tolls on existing or new 

toll roads, such as on the bridges and 

tunnels operated by the Port Authority 

of New York and New Jersey. 

• Network-wide or cordon pricing, 

such as implemented in Stockholm, 

London and Singapore. 

• Usage-based vehicle pricing, such 

as mileage-based vehicle taxation being 

explored by the State of Oregon, or payper-mile car insurance. 

As with any eligible CMAQ project, 

value pricing must generate an 

emissions reduction. Marketing and 

outreach efforts to expand and 

encourage the use of eligible pricing 

measures may be funded indefinitely. 

Eligible expenses for reimbursement 

include, but are not limited to: Tolling 

infrastructure, such as transponders and 

other electronic toll or fare payment 

systems; small roadway modifications to 

enable tolling, marketing, public 

outreach, and support services, such as 

transit in a newly tolled corridor. 

Innovative pricing approaches yet to be 

deployed in the U.S. also may be 

supported through the Value Pricing 

Pilot Program. A more complete 

discussion of projects currently 

underway in the U.S. can be found at: 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/ 

value_pricing/index.htm. 

Operating expenses for traffic flow 

improvements are eligible for CMAQ 

funding for a period not to exceed three 

years if they can be shown to produce 

air quality benefits, if the expenses are 

incurred from new or additional 

services, and if previous funding 

mechanisms, such as fares or fees for 

services, are not displaced. 

Projects or programs that involve the 

purchase of integrated, interoperable 

emergency communications equipment 

are eligible for CMAQ funding.20

5. Transit Improvements 

Many transit projects are eligible for 

CMAQ funds. The general guideline for 

determining eligibility is whether the 

project increases capacity and would 

likely result in an increase in transit 

ridership and a potential reduction in 

congestion. As with other types of 

CMAQ projects, there should be a 

quantified estimate of the project’s 

emissions benefits accompanying the 

proposal. 

The FTA administers most transit 

projects. Once the FTA determines a 

project eligible, CMAQ funds will be 

transferred from the FHWA to the FTA, 

and the project will be administered 

according to the requirements of the 

FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Grant 

Program.21 Certain types of transit 

projects for which the FTA lacks 

statutory authority, such as diesel 

retrofit equipment for public school bus 

fleets, are administered by the FHWA. 

a. Facilities 

New transit facilities (e.g., lines, 

stations, terminals, transfer facilities) 

are eligible if they are associated with 

new or enhanced mass transit service. 

Routine maintenance or rehabilitation of 

existing facilities is not eligible, as it 

does not reduce emissions. However, 

rehabilitation of a facility may be 

eligible if the vast majority of the project 

involves physical improvements that 

will increase capacity. In such cases 

there should be supporting 

documentation showing an increase in 

transit ridership that is more than 

minimal. If the vast majority of the 

project involves capacity enhancements, 

other elements involving refurbishment 

and replacement-in-kind also are 

eligible. 

b. Vehicles and Equipment 

New transit vehicles (bus, rail, or van) 

to expand the fleet or replace existing 

vehicles are eligible. Transit agencies 

are encouraged to purchase vehicles that 

are most cost-effective in reducing 

emissions. Diesel engine retrofits, such 

as replacement engines and exhaust 

after-treatment devices, are eligible if 

certified or verified by the EPA or 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

Routine preventive maintenance for 

vehicles is not eligible as it only returns 

the vehicles to baseline conditions. 

Besides diesel engine retrofits, other 

transit equipment may be eligible if it 

represents a major system-wide upgrade 

that will significantly improve speed or 

reliability of transit service, such as 

advanced signal and communications 

systems. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76045 

22 23 U.S.C. 217(d). 

23Section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code 

allows employers to pay their employees, in 2006, 

up to $105 per month for transit and vanpool 

expenses and up to $205 per month for qualified 

parking. 26 U.S.C. 132(f). Each of these benefits is 

subject to annual increases based on changes to the 

Consumer Price Index. 26 U.S.C. 1(f)(3). 

Alternately, employers may allow employees to use 

their pre-tax income to purchase these commuter 

benefits. Employers may also provide a 

combination of these employer-paid and employee 

paid tax-free benefits. For more information, please 

visit http://www.commuterchoice.com/. 

c. Fuel 

Fuel, whether conventional or 

alternative fuel, is an eligible expense 

only as part of a project providing 

operating assistance for new or 

expanded transit service under the 

CMAQ program. This includes fuels and 

fuel additives considered diesel retrofit 

technologies by the EPA or CARB. See 

Section VII.D.3 for statutory exceptions 

for certain states regarding the purchase 

of alternative fuel with CMAQ funds. 

d. Operating Assistance 

Operating assistance to introduce new 

transit service or expand existing 

service is eligible. It may be a new type 

of service, service to a new geographic 

area, or an expansion of existing service 

providing additional hours of service or 

reduced headways. For a service 

expansion, only the operating costs of 

the new increment of service are 

eligible. Eligible operating costs include 

labor, fuel, maintenance, and related 

expenses. Operating assistance may be 

CMAQ-funded for a maximum of three 

years. The intent is to support the 

demonstration of new services that may 

prove successful enough to sustain with 

other funding sources, and to free up 

CMAQ funds to generate new air quality 

benefits. 

It is not appropriate to use CMAQ 

funds for operating assistance for New 

Start projects because these projects 

require dedicated, stable sources of 

funding for their operation. Relying on 

CMAQ funds for the initial operating 

costs of these projects is contrary to the 

need to establish permanent State and 

local funding sources to cover operating 

and maintenance costs. 

e. Transit Fare Subsidies 

CMAQ funds may be used to 

subsidize regular transit fares in an 

effort to prevent the NAAQS from being 

exceeded, but only under the following 

conditions: The reduced or free fare 

must be part of a comprehensive areawide program to prevent the NAAQS 

from being exceeded. ‘‘Ozone Action’’

programs vary in scope around the 

country, but they generally include 

actions that individuals and employers 

can take and they are aimed at all major 

sources of air pollution, not just 

transportation. The subsidized fare must 

be available to the general public and 

may not be limited to specific groups. It 

may only be offered during periods of 

elevated pollution when the threat of 

exceeding the NAAQS is greatest; it is 

not intended for the entire high-ozone 

season. Finally, the fare subsidy 

proposal must demonstrate that the 

responsible local agencies will combine 

the reduced or free fare with a robust 

marketing program to inform SOV 

drivers of other transportation options. 

The subsidy is not subject to the threeyear limit for operating assistance. 

6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and 

Programs 

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities and 

programs are included as a TCM in 

section 108(f)(1)(A) of the CAA. The 

following are eligible projects: 

• Constructing bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities (paths, bike racks, support 

facilities, etc.) that are not exclusively 

recreational and reduce vehicle trips. 

• Non-construction outreach related 

to safe bicycle use. 

• Establishing and funding State 

bicycle/pedestrian coordinator positions 

for promoting and facilitating 

nonmotorized transportation modes 

through public education, safety 

programs, etc. (Limited to one full-time 

position per State).22

7. Travel Demand Management 

Travel demand management (TDM) 

encompasses a diverse set of activities 

that focus on physical assets and 

services that provide real-time 

information on network performance 

and support better decision-making for 

travelers choosing modes, times, routes, 

and locations. Such projects can help 

ease congestion and reduce SOV use—

contributing to mobility, while 

enhancing air quality and saving energy 

resources. Similar to ITS and Value 

Pricing, today’s TDM programs seek to 

optimize the performance of local and 

regional transportation networks. The 

following activities are eligible if they 

are explicitly aimed at reducing SOV 

travel and associated emissions: 

• Fringe parking 

• Traveler information services 

• Shuttle services 

• Guaranteed ride home programs 

• Market research and planning in 

support of TDM implementation 

• Carpools, vanpools (see item 10 

below) 

• Traffic calming measures 

• Parking pricing 

• Variable road pricing 

• Telecommuting 

• Employer-based commuter choice 

programs 

CMAQ funds may support capital 

expenses and up to three years of 

operating assistance to administer and 

manage new or expanded TDM 

programs. 

Marketing and outreach efforts to 

expand use of TDM measures may be 

funded indefinitely, but only if they are 

broken out as distinct line items (See 

Section VII.D.8. below). 

Eligible telecommuting activities 

include planning, preparing technical 

and feasibility studies, and training. 

Construction of telecommuting centers 

and computer and office equipment 

purchases are not eligible for CMAQ 

funds. 

8. Public Education and Outreach 

Activities 

The goal of CMAQ-funded public 

education and outreach activities is to 

educate the public, community leaders, 

and potential project sponsors about 

connections among trip making and 

transportation mode choices, traffic 

congestion, and air quality. Public 

education and outreach can help 

communities reduce emissions and 

congestion by inducing drivers to 

change their transportation choices. 

More important, an informed public is 

likely to support larger regional 

measures necessary to reduce 

congestion and meet CAA requirements. 

A wide range of public education and 

outreach activities is eligible for CMAQ 

funding, including activities that 

promote new or existing transportation 

services, developing messages and 

advertising materials (including market 

research, focus groups, and creative), 

placing messages and materials, 

evaluating message and material 

dissemination and public awareness, 

technical assistance, programs that 

promote the Tax Code provision related 

to commute benefits,23 transit ‘‘store’’

operations, and any other activities that 

help forward less-polluting 

transportation options. 

Using CMAQ funds, communities 

have disseminated many transportation 

and air quality public education 

messages, including maintain your 

vehicle; curb SOV travel by trip 

chaining, telecommuting and using 

alternate modes; fuel properly; observe 

speed limits; don’t idle your vehicle for 

long durations; eliminate ‘‘jack-rabbit’’

starts and stops, and others. 

The It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air 

public education messages and 

materials (regarding vehicle 

maintenance, proper fueling, trip 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76046 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 

24 23 U.S.C. 120(c) 

25 23 U.S.C. 149(b)(3) 

26 23 U.S.C. 149(b)(f) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1808(d)). 

27 23 U.S.C. 149(f)(2) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1808(d)). 

28Reimbursement of costs for full-vehicle 

replacement may be limited to those elements that 

lead to emission reductions. 

chaining, and alternate modes) have 

been successful in raising awareness, 

garnering funds and in-kind support, 

and building coalitions of diverse 

groups across the country. These 

commercial-quality materials, which 

were developed in response to requests 

by state and local transportation and air 

agencies, are free and communities are 

encouraged to use and build on them. 

More information is available at http:// 

www.italladdsup.gov/. 

The Best Workplaces for 

CommutersSM program provides 

national recognition to employers 

offering commuter benefits that meet the 

EPA’s National Standard of Excellence. 

Development of materials and public 

education messages promoting Best 

Workplaces for CommutersSM and 

employer provided commuter benefits 

may be eligible for funding. More 

information is available at http:// 

www.bwc.gov/. 

Long-term public education and 

outreach can be effective in raising 

awareness that can lead to changes in 

travel behavior and ongoing emissions 

reductions; therefore, these activities 

may be funded indefinitely. 

9. Transportation Management 

Associations 

Transportation Management 

Associations (TMAs) are groups of 

citizens, firms, or employers that 

organize to address the transportation 

issues in their immediate locale by 

promoting rideshare programs, transit, 

shuttles, or other measures. TMAs can 

play a useful role in brokering 

transportation services to private 

employers. 

CMAQ funds may be used to establish 

TMAs provided that they reduce 

emissions. Eligible expenses include 

TMA start-up costs and up to three 

years of operating assistance. Eligibility 

of specific TMA activities is addressed 

throughout this guidance. 

10. Carpooling and Vanpooling 

Eligible activities can be divided into 

two types of costs: Marketing (which 

applies to both carpools and vanpools) 

and vehicle (which applies to vanpools 

only). 

a. Carpool/vanpool marketing covers 

existing, expanded, and new activities 

designed to increase the use of carpools 

and vanpools, and includes purchase 

and use of computerized matching 

software and outreach to employers. 

Guaranteed ride home programs are also 

considered marketing tools. Marketing 

costs may be funded indefinitely. 

b. Vanpool vehicle capital costs 

include purchasing or leasing vans for 

use in vanpools. Eligible operating 

costs, limited to three years, include 

empty-seat subsidies, maintenance, 

insurance, administration, and other 

related expenses. 

CMAQ funds should not be used to 

buy or lease vans that would directly 

compete with or impede private sector 

initiatives. States and MPOs should 

consult with the private sector prior to 

using CMAQ funds to purchase vans, 

and if private firms have definite plans 

to provide adequate vanpool service, 

CMAQ funds should not be used to 

supplant that service. 

Carpooling and vanpooling activities 

may be funded with up to 100% federal 

funding, with certain limitations.24

11. Freight/Intermodal 

Projects and programs targeting 

freight capital costs—rolling stock or 

ground infrastructure—are eligible 

provided that air quality benefits can be 

demonstrated. Freight projects that 

reduce emissions fall generally into two 

categories: Primary efforts that target 

emissions directly or secondary projects 

that reduce net emissions. 

Successful primary projects could 

include new diesel engine technology or 

retrofits of vehicles or engines. 

Eligibility is not confined to highway 

projects, but also applies to nonroad 

mobile freight projects, such as rail.25

See Section VII.D.12. below on diesel 

retrofit technology—examples of 

primary freight projects—and for 

information on EPA’s guidance and 

model rule for emissions reduction 

credit in the SIP and conformity 

processes. 

Secondary projects reduce emissions 

through shifts in or additions to 

infrastructure. Support for an 

intermodal container transfer facility 

may be eligible if the project 

demonstrates reduced diesel engine 

emissions when balancing the drop in 

truck VMT against the increase in 

locomotive or other non-highway 

activity. Intermodal facilities, such as 

inland transshipment ports or on-dock 

rail, may generate substantial emissions 

reductions through the decrease in 

miles traveled for pre-1986 heavy-duty 

diesel trucks. This secondary, indirect 

effect on truck traffic and the ensuing 

drop in diesel emissions help 

demonstrate eligibility. 

The transportation function of these 

freight/intermodal projects should be 

emphasized. Marginal projects that 

support freight operations in a very 

tangential manner are not eligible for 

CMAQ funding. Warehouse handling 

equipment, for example, is not an 

eligible investment of program funds. 

However, equipment that provides a 

transportation function or directly 

supports this function is eligible, such 

as railyard switch locomotives or 

shunters. 

12. Diesel Engine Retrofits & Other 

Advanced Truck Technologies 

The SAFETEA–LU places a new 

emphasis on diesel engine retrofits and 

the various types of projects that fall 

under this broad category.26 These 

efforts are defined as vehicle 

replacement, repowering (replacing an 

engine with a cleaner engine), 

rebuilding an engine, or other 

technologies determined by the EPA as 

appropriate for reducing emissions from 

diesel engines.27 This latter point, 

highlighting developing technologies, 

establishes a degree of flexibility and a 

need for periodic adjustment in the 

definition by the EPA. The legislation 

defines retrofit projects as applicable to 

both on-road motor vehicles and 

nonroad construction equipment; the 

latter must be used in Title 23 projects 

based in nonattainment or maintenance 

areas for either PM or ozone. 

There are a number of project types in 

the diesel retrofit area for which CMAQ 

funds are eligible. Assuming all other 

CMAQ criteria are met, eligible projects 

include diesel engine replacement; full 

engine rebuilding and reconditioning; 

and purchase and installation of aftertreatment hardware, including 

particulate matter traps and oxidation 

catalysts, and other technologies; and 

support for heavy-duty vehicle 

retirement programs. Project agreements 

involving replacements of either engine 

or full vehicle should include a 

provision for disposal of the engine 

block and a process to verify the 

retirement of this equipment.28

CMAQ funds may be used to purchase 

and install emission control equipment 

on school buses. (Such projects, 

generally, should be administered by 

FHWA; see VII.D.5, Transit 

Improvements, above.) 

Refueling is not eligible as a standalone project, and is eligible only if it is 

required to support the installation of 

emissions control equipment, 

repowering, rebuilding, or other retrofits 

of non-road engines. For example, ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) may be 

purchased as part of a project to install 

diesel particulate filters on nonroad 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76047 

29 23 U.S.C. 111(d) (SAFETEA–LU section 1412). 

30 23 U.S.C. 504(e) (SAFETEA–LU section 

5204(e)). 

construction equipment because these 

devices need ULSD to function 

properly. Costs associated with ULSD 

are eligible for CMAQ funding only 

until the standards are effective and the 

fuel becomes commonly available 

through the regional supply and 

logistics chain, effectively rendering 

ULSD the only diesel fuel distributed. 

Eligible costs are limited to the 

difference between standard nonroad 

diesel fuel and ULSD. 

In addition to equipment and 

technology, outreach activities that 

provide information exchange and 

technical assistance to diesel owners 

and operators on retrofit options are 

eligible investments. Please see 

Appendix 5 for more detail on diesel 

retrofits and the various strategies 

available in this developing air quality 

field. 

The FHWA acknowledges that diesel 

retrofit projects may include nonroad 

mobile source endeavors, which 

traditionally have been outside the 

Federal-aid process. However, the 

SAFETEA–LU clarifies CMAQ 

eligibility for nonroad diesel retrofit 

projects. Areas that fund these projects 

are not required to take credit for the 

projects in the transportation conformity 

process. For areas that want to take 

credit, the EPA developed guidance for 

estimating diesel retrofit emission 

reductions and for applying the credit in 

the SIP and transportation conformity 

processes. The guidance can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/ 

policy.htm#retrofit. 

In addition to retrofit projects, 

upgrading long-haul heavy-duty diesel 

trucks with advanced technologies, such 

as idle reduction devices, cab and trailer 

aerodynamic fixtures, and single-wide 

or other efficient tires, has been 

demonstrated by the EPA’s Smart Way 

Transport Partnership Program to 

reduce NOX emissions and save fuel. 

These strategies also are eligible for 

CMAQ support. Such projects funded 

directly by CMAQ that involve the 

private sector must be part of a PublicPrivate Partnership, as discussed in 

Section VII.C. 

13. Idle Reduction 

Idle reduction projects that reduce 

emissions and are located within, or in 

proximity to and primarily benefiting, a 

nonattainment or maintenance area are 

eligible for CMAQ investment (The 

geographic requirement mainly applies 

to off-board projects, i.e. truck stop 

electrification (TSE) efforts). However, if 

CMAQ funding is used for an on-board 

project (i.e., auxiliary power units, 

direct fired heaters, etc.) the vehicle—

usually a heavy-duty truck—must travel 

within, or in proximity to and primarily 

benefiting, a nonattainment or 

maintenance area. 

There have been several instances 

where operating assistance funds have 

been requested for TSE services. CMAQ 

funding to date for TSE projects has 

been limited to capital costs (i.e., 

deployment of TSE infrastructure). 

Operating assistance for TSE projects is 

not an eligible activity under the CMAQ 

program because TSE projects generate 

their own revenue stream and therefore 

should be able to cover all operating 

expenses from the accumulated 

revenue. See Section III.D for 

information on innovative financing 

opportunities available for these efforts. 

The SAFETEA–LU also permits 

electrification or other idling reduction 

facilities and equipment to be 

constructed or located on rights-of-way 

of the Interstate system.29 Prior to the 

enactment of the SAFETEA–LU, this 

activity was prohibited. 

The EPA issued guidance in January 

2004 on methods for calculating 

emissions reduction credits in SIPs and 

in the transportation conformity process 

for long-haul truck idle reduction 

projects. The guidance can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/smartway/ 

idlingimpacts.htm. 

14. Training 

The SAFETEA–LU provides that 

States and MPOs may use Federal-aid 

funds to support training and 

educational development for the 

transportation workforce.30 The FHWA 

encourages State and local officials to 

weigh the air quality benefits of such 

training against other cost-effective 

strategies detailed elsewhere in this 

guidance before using CMAQ funds for 

this purpose. Training funded with 

CMAQ dollars must be directly related 

to implementing air quality 

improvements and be approved in 

advance by the FHWA Division office. 

15. Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) 

Programs 

Funds under the CMAQ program may 

be used to establish either publicly or 

privately owned I/M facilities. Eligible 

activities include construction of 

facilities, purchase of equipment, I/M 

program development, and one-time 

start-up activities, such as updating 

quality assurance software or 

developing a mechanic training 

curriculum. The I/M program must 

constitute new or additional efforts, 

existing funding (including inspection 

fees) should not be displaced, and 

operating expenses are eligible for a 

maximum of three years. 

Privately Owned I/M Facilities 

In States that rely on privately owned 

I/M facilities, State or local I/M 

program-related administrative costs 

may be funded under the CMAQ 

program as in States that use public 

I/M facilities. However, CMAQ support 

to establish I/M facilities at privately 

owned stations, such as service stations 

that own the equipment and conduct 

emission test-and-repair services, 

requires a public-private partnership 

(See Section VII.C.). 

The establishment of ‘‘portable’’ I/M 

programs, including remote sensing, is 

also eligible under the CMAQ program, 

provided that they are public services, 

reduce emissions, and do not conflict 

with statutory I/M requirements or EPA 

regulations. 

16. Experimental Pilot Projects 

State and local organizations 

traditionally have experimented with 

various types of transportation services 

to better meet the travel needs of their 

constituents. These ‘‘experimental’’

projects may show promise in reducing 

emissions, but do not yet have 

supporting data. The FHWA has 

supported and funded some of these 

projects as demonstrations to determine 

their benefits and costs. These 

experimental pilots are not intended to 

bypass the definition of basic project 

eligibility but seek to better define the 

projects’ future role in strategies to 

reduce emissions. 

For a project or program to qualify as 

an experimental pilot, it must be 

defined as a transportation project and 

be expected to reduce emissions by 

decreasing vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT), fuel consumption, congestion, or 

by other factors. The FHWA encourages 

States and MPOs to creatively address 

their air quality problems and to 

experiment with new services, 

innovative financing arrangements, 

public-private partnerships, and 

complementary approaches that use 

transportation strategies to reach clean 

air goals. The CMAQ program may be 

used to support a well-conceived project 

even if the proposal may not fully meet 

the eligibility criteria of this guidance. 

Given the untried nature of these pilot 

projects, before-and-after studies are 

required to determine actual project 

impacts on air quality as measured by 

net emissions reduced. These 

assessments should document the 

project’s immediate impacts in addition 

to long-term benefits. A schedule for 

completing the study must be a part of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76048 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 

31 23 U.S.C. 149(e) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1808(e)). 

32More information is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/publications.htm. 

the project agreement. Completed 

studies must be submitted to the FHWA 

Division office within three years of 

implementation of the project or one 

year after the project’s completion, 

whichever is sooner. 

VIII. Project Selection Process—

General Conditions 

Proposals for CMAQ funding should 

include a precise description of the 

project, providing information on its 

size, scope, location, and timetable. 

Also, an assessment of the project’s 

expected emission reduction benefits is 

required prior to project selection to 

better inform the selection of CMAQ 

projects (See Below). 

A. Air Quality Analysis 

1. Quantitative Analyses 

Quantified emissions benefits (i.e., 

emissions reductions) and disbenefits 

(i.e., emissions increases) should be 

included in all project proposals, except 

where it is not possible to quantify 

emissions benefits (see Qualitative 

Assessment, below). Benefits and 

disbenefits should be included for all 

pollutants for which the area is in 

nonattainment or maintenance status. 

Benefits should be listed in a consistent 

fashion (i.e., kg/day) across projects to 

allow accurate comparison during the 

project selection process. 

State and local transportation and air 

quality agencies conduct CMAQ-project 

air quality analyses with different 

approaches, analytical capabilities, and 

technical expertise. The SAFETEA–LU 

encourages State DOTs and MPOs to 

consult with State and local air quality 

agencies about the estimated emission 

reductions from CMAQ proposals.31

However, while no single method is 

specified, every effort must be taken to 

ensure that determinations of air quality 

benefits are credible and based on a 

reproducible and logical analytical 

procedure. 

2. Qualitative Assessment 

Although quantitative analysis of air 

quality impacts is required for almost all 

project types, an exception to this 

requirement will be made when it is not 

possible to accurately quantify 

emissions benefits. In these cases, a 

qualitative assessment based on a 

reasoned and logical determination that 

the project or program will decrease 

emissions and contribute to attainment 

or maintenance of a NAAQS is 

acceptable. 

Public education, marketing, and 

other outreach efforts, which can 

include advertising alternatives to SOV 

travel, employer outreach, and public 

education campaigns, may fall into this 

category. The primary benefit of these 

activities is enhanced communication 

and outreach that is expected to 

influence travel behavior, and thus air 

quality. 

3. Analyzing Groups of Projects 

In some situations, it may be more 

appropriate to examine the impacts of 

comprehensive strategies to improve air 

quality by grouping projects. For 

example, transit improvements coupled 

with demand management to reduce 

SOV use in a corridor might best be 

analyzed together. Other examples 

include linked signalization projects, 

transit improvements, marketing and 

outreach programs, and ridesharing 

programs that affect an entire region or 

corridor. 

4. Tradeoffs 

As noted above, emissions benefits 

should be calculated for all pollutants 

for which an area is in nonattainment or 

maintenance status. Some potential 

projects may lead to benefits for one 

pollutant and increased emissions for 

another, especially when the balance 

involves precursors such as NOX and 

VOC. States and MPOs should consult 

with relevant air agencies to weigh the 

net benefits of the project. 

IX. Program Administration 

A. Project Selection—MPO and State 

Responsibilities 

CMAQ projects are selected by the 

State or the MPO. MPOs, State DOTs, 

and transit agencies should develop 

CMAQ project selection processes in 

accordance with the metropolitan and/ 

or statewide planning process. The 

selection process should involve State 

and/or local transportation and air 

quality agencies. 

The CMAQ project selection process 

should be transparent, in writing, and 

publicly available. The process should 

identify the agencies involved in rating 

proposed projects, clarify how projects 

are rated, and name the committee or 

group responsible for making the final 

recommendation to the MPO board or 

other approving body. The selection 

process should also clearly identify the 

basis for rating projects, including 

emissions benefits, cost effectiveness, 

and any other ancillary selection factors 

such as congestion relief, greenhouse 

gas reductions, safety, system 

preservation, access to opportunity, 

sustainable development and freight, 

reduced SOV reliance, multi-modal 

benefits, and others. At a minimum, 

projects must be identified by year and 

proposed funding source. 

Close coordination is necessary 

between the State and MPO to ensure 

that CMAQ funds are used 

appropriately and to maximize their 

effectiveness in meeting the CAA 

requirements. 

States and MPOs must fulfill this 

responsibility so that nonattainment and 

maintenance areas are able to make 

good-faith efforts to attain and maintain 

the NAAQS by the prescribed deadlines. 

State DOTs and MPOs should consult 

with State and local air quality agencies 

to develop an appropriate project list of 

CMAQ programming priorities that will 

have the greatest impact on air quality. 

In developing this list, MPOs and States 

should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 

the projects and give priority 

consideration to those that will create 

the greatest emissions reductions for the 

least cost. The SAFETEA–LU calls out 

diesel retrofits as one type of costeffective project to which priority 

consideration shall be given. The EPA 

has conducted an extensive study on the 

cost-effectiveness of diesel retrofits in 

reducing PM emissions.32 The National 

Academy of Science’s Transportation 

Research Board has evaluated the costeffectiveness of other CMAQ eligible 

projects, with a focus on NOX and HC 

reductions. Information on the costeffectiveness of CMAQ-eligible projects 

is presented in Appendix 4, which can 

be used as a guidepost in evaluating the 

cost-effectiveness of different types of 

projects under consideration by an MPO 

or State. However, cost-effectiveness 

ultimately will depend on local 

conditions and project specific factors 

that affect emission reductions and 

costs. 

B. Federal Agency Responsibilities and 

Coordination 

1. Program Administration 

The FHWA Division offices and the 

FTA Regional offices are responsible for 

administering the CMAQ program. The 

FHWA transfers funds to the FTA to 

administer CMAQ-funded transit 

projects. In cases where the FTA lacks 

statutory authority, (e.g., school bus 

fleets) the FHWA will administer the 

transit project. For projects that involve 

transit and non-transit elements, such as 

park-and-ride lots and intermodal 

passenger projects, the administering 

agency is decided on a case-by-case 

basis. All other projects are 

administered by the FHWA. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76049 

33The FHWA is in the process of acquiring the 

required clearance pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act from the Office of Management and 

Budget to collect this data. 

34 23 U.S.C. 149(h) (SAFETEA–LU section 

1808(f)). 

2. Eligibility Determinations 

The administering agency makes the 

final determination on CMAQ 

eligibility. The FHWA, FTA, and EPA 

field offices should establish and 

maintain a consultation and 

coordination process to review CMAQ 

funding proposals as needed. The 

consultation process should provide for 

timely review and handling of CMAQ 

funding proposals. The FHWA and FTA 

headquarters offices are available to 

consult with their field offices on 

eligibility determinations as needed. 

3. Tracking Mandatory/Flexible Funds 

The FHWA Division office is 

responsible for tracking obligation of 

mandatory and flexible CMAQ funds in 

appropriate areas (See Section V.B.). 

C. Annual Reports 

States are required to prepare annual 

reports detailing how CMAQ funds have 

been invested.33 CMAQ reporting is not 

only useful for the FHWA, the FTA, and 

the general public, but maintenance of 

a cumulative database of all CMAQ 

projects is required by the SAFETEA–

LU. In addition, the annual reports will 

be key in developing the CMAQ 

Evaluation and Assessment, a major 

research effort designed to gauge the 

impact of the program, and also 

required by the statute.34

CMAQ annual reports must be 

submitted through the web-based 

CMAQ Tracking System. More 

information on the CMAQ system is 

available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

environment/cmaqpgs/ 

usersguidemail.htm. 

The FHWA Division offices, State 

DOTs, and MPOs should develop a 

process for entering and approving the 

data in a timely manner. This report 

should be approved by the FHWA 

Division office by the first day of March 

following the end of the previous 

Federal fiscal year (September 30) and 

cover all CMAQ obligations for that 

fiscal year. Thus, State DOTs and MPOs 

need to report the data early enough that 

the Division office has time to review 

and comment on the report. The report 

as entered into the CMAQ Tracking 

System should include: 

1. A list of projects funded under 

CMAQ, in seven main project 

categories: 

• Transit: facilities, vehicles, and 

equipment, operating assistance for new 

transit service, etc. Include all transit 

projects whether administered by the 

FTA or the FHWA. 

• Shared Ride: vanpool and carpool 

programs and parking for shared-ride 

services. 

• Traffic Flow Improvements: traffic 

management and control services, 

signalization projects, ITS projects, 

intersection improvements, and 

construction or dedication of HOV 

lanes. 

• Demand Management: trip 

reduction programs, transportation 

management plans, flexible work 

schedule programs, vehicle restriction 

programs. 

• Pedestrian/Bicycle: bikeways, 

storage facilities, promotional activities. 

• I/M and other TCMs: projects not 

covered by the above categories. 

• STP/CMAQ: projects funded with 

flexible funds. 

For reporting purposes, obligations for 

all CMAQ-eligible phases (beginning 

with the NEPA process) should be 

reported for the project they support. 

2. The amount of CMAQ funds 

obligated or deobligated for each project 

during the federal fiscal year. Enter 

deobligations as a negative number. (Do 

not include Advance Construct funds, 

as these are not obligations of federal 

CMAQ funds. Such projects should be 

reported later when converted to CMAQ 

funds.) 

3. Emissions benefits (and disbenefits) 

for each project developed from projectlevel analyses. Report projected 

emissions benefits expected to occur in 

the first year that a project is fully 

operational, in kilograms reduced per 

day. Benefits should be reported the 

first time a project is entered into the 

system, and only then to avoid double 

counting of benefits. (Because funds 

may be obligated for a project over 

several years, an individual CMAQ 

project may show up in reports for 

multiple years.) Additionally, address 

all pollutants for which the area is in 

nonattainment or maintenance status. 

Do not enter emissions benefits for 

deobligations or projects funded with 

flexible funds (STP/CMAQ). 

4. Public-private partnerships and 

experimental pilot projects should be 

identified in the system. Transmit 

electronic versions of completed beforeand-after studies for experimental pilot 

projects to the Division offices (See 

Section VII.D.16., Experimental Pilot 

Projects). 

5. Other required information: MPO, 

nonattainment/maintenance area, 

project description. 

6. Optional information: TIP, State 

and/or FMIS project numbers—highly 

recommended. Other optional 

information includes: greenhouse gas 

emission reductions, safety, congestion 

relief, and other ancillary benefits. 

Appendix 1: 23 U.S.C. 149 

SAFETEA–LU Changes in Underlined 

Italics 

§ 149. Congestion mitigation and air 

quality improvement program 

(a) Establishment.—The Secretary 

shall establish and implement a 

congestion mitigation and air quality 

improvement program in accordance 

with this section. 

(b) Eligible Projects.—Except as 

provided in subsection (c), a State may 

obligate funds apportioned to it under 

section 104 (b)(2) for the congestion 

mitigation and air quality improvement 

program only for a transportation 

project or program if the project or 

program is for an area in the State that 

is or was designated as a nonattainment 

area for ozone, carbon monoxide, or 

particulate matter under section 107(d) 

of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407 (d)) 

and classified pursuant to section 

181(a), 186(a), 188(a), or 188(b) of the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 (a), 7512 

(a), 7513 (a), or 7513 (b)) or is or was 

designated as a nonattainment area 

under such section 107 (d) after 

December 31, 1997, or is required to 

prepare, and file with the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency, 

maintenance plans under the Clean Air 

Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and—

(1)(A)(i) if the Secretary, after 

consultation with the Administrator 

determines, on the basis of information 

published by the Environmental 

Protection Agency pursuant to section 

108(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (other 

than clause (xvi)) that the project or 

program is likely to contribute to—

(I) the attainment of a national 

ambient air quality standard; or 

(II) the maintenance of a national 

ambient air quality standard in a 

maintenance area; and 

(ii) a high level of effectiveness in 

reducing air pollution, in cases of 

projects or programs where sufficient 

information is available in the database 

established pursuant to subsection (h) to 

determine the relative effectiveness of 

such projects or programs; or, 

(B) in any case in which such 

information is not available, if the 

Secretary, after such consultation, 

determines that the project or program 

is part of a program, method, or strategy 

described in such section 108(f)(1)(A); 

(2) if the project or program is 

included in a State implementation plan 

that has been approved pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act and the project will have 

air quality benefits; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76050 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 

(3) the Secretary, after consultation 

with the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

determines that the project or program 

is likely to contribute to the attainment 

of a national ambient air quality 

standard, whether through reductions in 

vehicle miles traveled, fuel 

consumption, or through other factors; 

(4) to establish or operate a traffic 

monitoring, management, and control 

facility or program if the Secretary, after 

consultation with the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

determines that the facility or program, 

including advanced truck stop 

electrification systems, is likely to 

contribute to the attainment of a 

national ambient air quality standard; 

(removed ‘‘or’’) 

(5) if the program or project improves 

traffic flow, including projects to 

improve signalization, construct high 

occupancy vehicle lanes, improve 

intersections, improve transportation 

systems management and operations 

that mitigate congestion and improve 

air quality, and implement intelligent 

transportation system strategies and 

such other projects that are eligible for 

assistance under this section on the day 

before the date of enactment of this 

paragraph; 

(6) if the project or program involves 

the purchase of integrated, 

interoperable emergency 

communications equipment; or 

(7) if the project or program is for—

(A) the purchase of diesel retrofits 

that are—

(i) for motor vehicles (as defined in 

section 216 of the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7550)); or 

(ii) published in the list under 

subsection (f)(2) for non-road vehicles 

and non-road engines (as defined in 

section 216 of the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7550)) that are used in 

construction projects that are—

(I) located in nonattainment or 

maintenance areas for ozone, PM10, or 

PM2.5 (as defined under the Clean Air 

Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)); and 

(II) funded, in whole or in part, under 

this title; or 

(B) the conduct of outreach activities 

that are designed to provide information 

and technical assistance to the owners 

and operators of diesel equipment and 

vehicles regarding the purchase and 

installation of diesel retrofits. 

No funds may be provided under this 

section for a project which will result in 

the construction of new capacity 

available to single occupant vehicles 

unless the project consists of a high 

occupancy vehicle facility available to 

single occupant vehicles only at other 

than peak travel times. In areas of a 

State which are nonattainment for ozone 

or carbon monoxide, or both, and for 

PM–10 resulting from transportation 

activities, the State may obligate such 

funds for any project or program under 

paragraph (1) or (2) without regard to 

any limitation of the Department of 

Transportation relating to the type of 

ambient air quality standard such 

project or program addresses. 

(c) States Receiving Minimum 

Apportionment.—

(1) States without a nonattainment 

area.—If a State does not have, and 

never has had, a nonattainment area 

designated under the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the State may use 

funds apportioned to the State under 

section 104 (b)(2) for any project in the 

State that—

(A) would otherwise be eligible under 

this section as if the project were carried 

out in a nonattainment or maintenance 

area; or 

(B) is eligible under the surface 

transportation program under section 

133. 

(2) States with a nonattainment 

area.—If a State has a nonattainment 

area or maintenance area and receives 

funds under section 104 (b)(2)(D) above 

the amount of funds that the State 

would have received based on its 

nonattainment and maintenance area 

population under subparagraphs (B) and 

(C) of section 104 (b)(2), the State may 

use that portion of the funds not based 

on its nonattainment and maintenance 

area population under subparagraphs 

(B) and (C) of section 104 (b)(2) for any 

project in the State that—

(A) would otherwise be eligible under 

this section as if the project were carried 

out in a nonattainment or maintenance 

area; or 

(B) is eligible under the surface 

transportation program under section 

133. 

(d) Applicability of Planning 

Requirements.—Programming and 

expenditure of funds for projects under 

this section shall be consistent with the 

requirements of sections 134 and 135 of 

this title. 

(e) Partnerships With 

Nongovernmental Entities.—

(1) In general.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of this title and in 

accordance with this subsection, a 

metropolitan planning organization, 

State transportation department, or 

other project sponsor may enter into an 

agreement with any public, private, or 

nonprofit entity to cooperatively 

implement any project carried out under 

this section. 

(2) Forms of participation by 

entities.—Participation by an entity 

under paragraph (1) may consist of—

(A) ownership or operation of any 

land, facility, vehicle, or other physical 

asset associated with the project; 

(B) cost sharing of any project 

expense; 

(C) carrying out of administration, 

construction management, project 

management, project operation, or any 

other management or operational duty 

associated with the project; and 

(D) any other form of participation 

approved by the Secretary. 

(3) Allocation to entities.—A State 

may allocate funds apportioned under 

section 104 (b)(2) to an entity described 

in paragraph (1). 

(4) Alternative fuel projects.—In the 

case of a project that will provide for the 

use of alternative fuels by privately 

owned vehicles or vehicle fleets, 

activities eligible for funding under this 

subsection—

(A) may include the costs of vehicle 

refueling infrastructure, including 

infrastructure that would support the 

development, production, and use of 

emerging technologies that reduce 

emissions of air pollutants from motor 

vehicles, and other capital investments 

associated with the project; 

(B) shall include only the incremental 

cost of an alternative fueled vehicle, as 

compared to a conventionally fueled 

vehicle, that would otherwise be borne 

by a private party; and 

(C) shall apply other governmental 

financial purchase contributions in the 

calculation of net incremental cost. 

(5) Prohibition on federal 

participation with respect to required 

activities.—A Federal participation 

payment under this subsection may not 

be made to an entity to fund an 

obligation imposed under the Clean Air 

Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) or any other 

Federal law. 

(f) Cost-Effective Emission Reduction 

Guidance.—

(1) Definitions.—In this subsection, 

the following definitions apply: 

(A) Administrator.—The term 

‘Administrator’ means the 

Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(B) Diesel retrofit.—The term ‘diesel 

retrofit’ means a replacement, 

repowering, rebuilding, after treatment, 

or other technology, as determined by 

the Administrator. 

(2) Emission reduction guidance.—

The Administrator, in consultation with 

the Secretary, shall publish a list of 

diesel retrofit technologies and 

supporting technical information for—

(A) diesel emission reduction 

technologies certified or verified by the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76051 

Administrator, the California Air 

Resources Board, or any other entity 

recognized by the Administrator for the 

same purpose; 

(B) diesel emission reduction 

technologies identified by the 

Administrator as having an application 

and approvable test plan for verification 

by the Administrator or the California 

Air Resources Board that is submitted 

not later that 18 months of the date of 

enactment of this subsection; 

(C) available information regarding 

the emission reduction effectiveness and 

cost effectiveness of technologies 

identified in this paragraph, taking into 

consideration air quality and health 

effects. 

(3) Priority.—

(A) In general.—States and 

metropolitan planning organizations 

shall give priority in distributing funds 

received for congestion mitigation and 

air quality projects and programs from 

apportionments derived from 

application of sections 104(b)(2)(B) and 

104(b)(2)(C) to—

(i) diesel retrofits, particularly where 

necessary to facilitate contract 

compliance, and other cost-effective 

emission reduction activities, taking 

into consideration air quality and health 

effects; and 

(ii) cost-effective congestion 

mitigation activities that provide air 

quality benefits. 

(B) Savings.—This paragraph is not 

intended to disturb the existing 

authorities and roles of governmental 

agencies in making final project 

selections. 

(4) No effect on authority or 

restrictions.—Nothing in this subsection 

modifies or otherwise affects any 

authority or restriction established 

under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 

et seq.) or any other law (other than 

provisions of this title relating to 

congestion mitigation and air quality). 

(g) Interagency Consultation.—The 

Secretary shall encourage States and 

metropolitan planning organizations to 

consult with State and local air quality 

agencies in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas on the estimated 

emission reductions from proposed 

congestion mitigation and air quality 

improvement programs and projects. 

(h) Evaluation and Assessment of 

Projects.—

(1) In general.—The Secretary, in 

consultation with the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

shall evaluate and assess a 

representative sample of projects 

funded under the congestion mitigation 

and air quality program to—

(A) determine the direct and indirect 

impact of the projects on air quality and 

congestion levels; and 

(B) ensure the effective 

implementation of the program. 

(2) Database.—Using appropriate 

assessments of projects funded under 

the congestion mitigation and air 

quality program and results from other 

research, the Secretary shall maintain 

and disseminate a cumulative database 

describing the impacts of the projects. 

(3) Consideration.—The Secretary, in 

consultation with the Administrator, 

shall consider the recommendations 

and findings of the report submitted to 

Congress under section 1110(e) of the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (112 Stat. 144), including 

recommendations and findings that 

would improve the operation and 

evaluation of the congestion mitigation 

and air quality improvement program. 

SAFETEA–LU Section 1808: Additional 

Provisions 

The following provisions were 

included in the SAFETEA–LU Section 

1808. These provisions do not amend 23 

U.S.C. and therefore sunset when the 

SAFETEA–LU expires. To avoid 

confusion, they are presented here 

separate from the rest of the statutory 

text. 

(g) Flexibility in the State of 

Montana.—The State of Montana may 

use funds apportioned under section 

104(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, 

for the operation of public transit 

activities that serve a nonattainment or 

maintenance area. 

(h) Availability of Funds for State of 

Michigan.—The State of Michigan may 

use funds apportioned under section 

104(b)(2) of such title for the operation 

and maintenance of intelligent 

transportation system strategies that 

serve a nonattainment or maintenance 

area. 

(i) Availability of Funds for the State 

of Maine.—The State of Maine may use 

funds apportioned under section 

104(b)(2) of such title to support, 

through September 30, 2009, the 

operation of passenger rail service 

between Boston, Massachusetts, and 

Portland, Maine. 

(j) Availability of Funds for Oregon.—

The State of Oregon may use funds 

apportioned on or before September 30, 

2009, under section 104(b)(2) of such 

title to support the operation of 

additional passenger rail service 

between Eugene and Portland. 

(k) Availability of Funds for Certain 

Other States.7mdash;The States of 

Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio may use 

funds apportioned under section 

104(b)(2) of such title to purchase 

alternative fuel (as defined in section 

301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 

U.S.C. 13211)) or biodiesel. 

APPENDIX 2: 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2) 

APPORTIONMENT 

[DRAFT VERSION—NOT CODIFIED 

YET] 

(2) Congestion mitigation and air 

quality improvement program.—

(A) In general.—For the congestion 

mitigation and air quality improvement 

program, in the ratio that—

(i) the total of all weighted 

nonattainment and maintenance area 

populations in each State; bears to 

(ii) the total of all weighted 

nonattainment and maintenance area 

populations in all States. 

(B) Calculation of weighted 

nonattainment and maintenance area 

population.—Subject to subparagraph 

(C), for the purpose of subparagraph (A), 

the weighted nonattainment and 

maintenance area population shall be 

calculated by multiplying the 

population of each area in a State that 

was a nonattainment area or 

maintenance area as described in 

section 149(b) for ozone or carbon 

monoxide by a factor of—

(i) 1.0 if, at the time of 

apportionment, the area is a 

maintenance area; 

(ii) 1.0 if, at the time of the 

apportionment, the area is classified as 

a marginal ozone nonattainment area 

under subpart 2 of part D of title I of the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 et seq.); 

(iii) 1.1 if, at the time of the 

apportionment, the area is classified as 

a moderate ozone nonattainment area 

under such subpart; 

(iv) 1.2 if, at the time of the 

apportionment, the area is classified as 

a serious ozone nonattainment area 

under such subpart; 

(v) 1.3 if, at the time of the 

apportionment, the area is classified as 

a severe ozone nonattainment area 

under such subpart; 

(vi) 1.4 if, at the time of the 

apportionment, the area is classified as 

an extreme ozone nonattainment area 

under such subpart; 

(vii) 1.0 if, at the time of the 

apportionment, the area is not a 

nonattainment or maintenance area as 

described in section 149(b) for ozone, 

but is classified under subpart 3 of part 

D of title I of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 

et seq. as a nonattainment area 

described in section 149(b) for carbon 

monoxide; or 

(viii) 1.0 if, at the time of 

apportionment, an area is designated as 

nonattainment for ozone under subpart 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76052 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 

35 23 U.S.C. 149(f). 

1 of part D of title I of such Act (42 

U.S.C. 7512 et seq.). 

(C) Additional Adjustment for Carbon 

Monoxide Areas.—If, in addition to 

being designated as a nonattainment or 

maintenance are for ozone as described 

in section 149(b), any county within the 

area was also classified under subpart 3 

of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7512 et seq.) as a 

nonattainment or maintenance area 

described in section 149(b) for carbon 

monoxide, the weighted nonattainment 

or maintenance area population of the 

county, as determined under clauses (i) 

through (vi) or clause (viii) of 

subparagraph (B), shall be further 

multiplied by a factor of 1.2. 

(D) Minimum apportionment.—

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this paragraph, each State shall receive 

a minimum of 1⁄2 of 1 percent of the 

funds apportioned under this paragraph. 

(E) Determinations of population.—In 

determining population figures for the 

purposes of this paragraph, the 

Secretary shall use the latest available 

annual estimates prepared by the 

Secretary of Commerce. 

APPENDIX 3: 23 U.S.C. § 120 FEDERAL 

SHARE PAYABLE 

(c) INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE 

FOR CERTAIN SAFETY PROJECTS. 

[excerpt] 

The Federal share payable on account 

of any project for traffic control 

signalization, traffic circles (also known 

as ’roundabouts’), safety rest areas, 

pavement marking, commuter 

carpooling and vanpooling, railhighway crossing closure, or installation 

of traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails, 

impact attenuators, concrete barrier 

endtreatments, breakaway utility poles, 

or priority control systems for 

emergency vehicles or transit vehicles at 

signalized intersections may amount to 

100 percent of the cost of construction 

of such projects; except that not more 

than 10 percent of all sums apportioned 

for all the Federal-aid systems for any 

fiscal year in accordance with section 

104 of this title shall be used under this 

subsection. 

APPENDIX 4: COMPARATIVE COSTEFFECTIVENESS OF POTENTIAL 

CMAQ FUNDED PROJECTS 

While the SAFETEA–LU maintains 

the existing roles and authorities of 

public agencies in project selection, the 

law also indicates that priority for 

CMAQ funding should be given to costeffective emission reduction and 

congestion mitigation measures.35 The 

SAFETEA–LU specifically highlights 

diesel retrofits as a priority costeffective measure. 

In 2002, the National Academy of 

Sciences’ (NAS) Transportation 

Research Board (TRB) published a 

study, in response to a congressional 

request that assessed the costeffectiveness of various CMAQ-eligible 

strategies to reduce congestion and 

emissions. The study measured the costeffectiveness of projects based on cost 

per ton of emissions (HC and NOX) 

reduced. In preparing the assessment, 

TRB gave NOX reductions four times the 

weight of HC reductions. The findings, 

shown in Figures A and D, are reported 

as the median values for each category 

analyzed. The cost information has been 

adjusted to 2005 dollars to account for 

inflation. 

It is important to note that while the 

NAS study reflects the best available 

data at the time of its completion, there 

are limitations inherent in such an 

assessment. The data presented are 

based on a select sampling of projects 

that may not completely capture the 

potential cost effectiveness of other 

techniques of implementing particular 

strategies. Therefore, the median cost 

should be coupled with the cost range 

to better portray a project’s potential 

cost-effectiveness. 

The NAS study did not consider 

advanced truck stop electrification 

(TSE) projects or diesel engine retrofit 

projects. Cost-effectiveness data for TSE 

projects were obtained from the EPA 

Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality. The cost-effectiveness of 

various diesel engine retrofit 

technologies, highlighted in the 

SAFETEA–LU as a priority CMAQ 

funding item, are illustrated in Figures 

B and C and are based on the cost 

(estimated 2007 dollars) per ton of PM 

reduced. 

While most of the technologies are 

presented in terms of tons of NOX

reduced, diesel engine retrofits are 

presented in terms of tons of PM 

reduced. A direct comparison is 

therefore not appropriate, as the health 

effects and emissions inventories differ 

between the two pollutants. It costs 

more to reduce a ton of PM than it does 

to reduce a ton of NOX. However, the 

health benefits of reducing a ton of PM 

are significantly greater than the 

benefits of reducing an equal amount of 

NOX. 

FIGURE A: NOX/HC COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS PROJECT TYPES

Strategy 

Median cost 

(2005 dollars)/ton 

of NOX/HC 

reduced 

Cost range 

(2005 dollars)/ton 

of NOX/HC 

reduced 

I/M ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,155 2,041–6,577 

Regional Rideshare ................................................................................................................................. 8,392 1,361–18,144 

Charges and Fees ................................................................................................................................... 11,680 907–56,020 

Vanpool Programs ................................................................................................................................... 11,907 5,897–100,926 

Misc. TDM ................................................................................................................................................ 14,175 2,608–37,649 

Conventional Fuel Bus Replacements .................................................................................................... 18,257 12,474–45,247 

Alternative-Fuel Vehicles ......................................................................................................................... 20,185 4,536–35,834 

Traffic Signalization ................................................................................................................................. 22,793 6,804–145,152 

Employer Trip Reduction ......................................................................................................................... 25,742 6,464–199,017 

Conventional Service Upgrades .............................................................................................................. 27,896 4,309–136,193 

Park-and-Ride Lots .................................................................................................................................. 48,762 9,752–80,174 

Modal Subsidies and Vouchers ............................................................................................................... 52,844 907–534,114 

New Transit Capital Systems/Vehicles .................................................................................................... 75,298 9,639–533,887 

Bike/Pedestrian ........................................................................................................................................ 95,369 4,763–390,890 

Shuttles, Feeder, Paratransit ................................................................................................................... 99,225 13,948–223,398 

Freeway Management ............................................................................................................................. 116,122 2,608–616,783 

Alternative-Fuel Buses ............................................................................................................................. 143,338 7,598–644,772 

HOV Lanes .............................................................................................................................................. 199,811 6,464–381,931 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76053 

FIGURE A: NOX/HC COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS PROJECT TYPES—Continued 

Strategy 

Median cost 

(2005 dollars)/ton 

of NOX/HC 

reduced 

Cost range 

(2005 dollars)/ton 

of NOX/HC 

reduced 

Telework .................................................................................................................................................. 285,541 15,082–9,329,418 

Source: TRB Special Report 264—The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience, Chapter 4, 2002. 

Advanced Truck Stop Electrification ................................................................................................................ 1,696 1,416-1,976 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation & Air Quality (Measured in dollars/ton of NOX reduced), 2006. 

In March, 2006, the EPA released a 

report, Diesel Retrofit Technology: An 

Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of 

Reducing Particulate Matter Emissions 

from Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines 

Through Retrofits, that analyzed diesel 

oxidation catalysts (DOC) and catalyzed 

diesel particulate filters (CDPF). These 

technologies are assessed in dollars per 

ton of PM reduced, unlike the 

information in Figure A and D, which 

is measured in tons of NOX/HC reduced. 

The EPA did not provide median 

values, instead providing a costeffectiveness range. 

FIGURE B: PM COST-EFFECTIVENESS IN DIESEL RETROFIT APPLICATIONS

Vehicle Retrofit technology 

Range of $/ton of 

PM reduced 

(Estimated 2007 

dollars) * 

School Bus ........................................................................................................................................... DOC .......................... 12,000–49,100 

CDPF ......................... 12,400–50,500 

Class 6 & 7 Truck ................................................................................................................................ DOC .......................... 27,600–67,900 

CDPF ......................... 28,400–69,900 

Class 8b Truck ..................................................................................................................................... DOC .......................... 11,100–40,600 

CDPF ......................... 12,100–44,100 

* The cost per ton of PM reduced will depend on a variety of factors including the age and activity levels of the vehicles or equipment. 

FIGURE C: PM COST-EFFECTIVENESS IN NONROAD RETROFIT APPLICATIONS

Equipment Retrofit technology 

Range of $/ton of 

PM reduced 

(Estimated 2007 

dollars) * 

Off-highway trucks ............................................................................................................................... DOC .......................... 17,200–43,500 

CDPF ......................... 14,300–36,300 

Loaders/Backhoes/Tractors ................................................................................................................. DOC .......................... 13,800–25,100 

CDPF ......................... 11,500–20,900 

Excavators ........................................................................................................................................... DOC .......................... 17,800–49,600 

CDPF ......................... 14,800–41,300 

Skid Steer Loaders .............................................................................................................................. DOC .......................... 11,600–25,900 

CDPF ......................... 9,700–21,600 

Generator Sets .................................................................................................................................... DOC .......................... 15,500–36,900 

CDPF ......................... 12,900–30,800 

250 hp Bulldozer .................................................................................................................................. DOC .......................... 18,100–49,700 

CDPF ......................... N/A 

* The cost per ton of PM reduced will depend on a variety of factors including the age and activity levels of the vehicles or equipment. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76054 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 

States and MPOs are encouraged to 

consider the information presented in 

this Appendix during their CMAQ 

project selection and prioritization 

process. 

Those seeking further information on 

the cost-effectiveness of CMAQ projects 

should consult TRB Special Report 

264—The Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Improvement Program: 

Assessing 10 Years of Experience, 

Chapter 4. 

APPENDIX 5: CONSIDERATIONS FOR 

DIESEL RETROFIT PROJECTS 

The term diesel retrofit includes any 

technology or system that achieves 

emission reductions beyond that 

required by the EPA regulations at the 

time of engine certification. Assuming 

all other criteria are met, eligible diesel 

retrofit projects include the replacement 

of high-emitting vehicles/equipment 

with cleaner vehicles/equipment 

(including hybrid or alternative fuel 

models), repowering or engine 

replacement, rebuilding the engine to a 

cleaner standard, the purchase and 

installation of advanced emissions 

control technologies (such as particulate 

matter traps or oxidation catalysts) or 

the use of a cleaner fuel to support 

eligible nonroad devices. The legislation 

defines retrofit projects as applicable to 

both on-road motor vehicles and 

nonroad construction equipment. 

Retrofit strategies include: 

Emissions Control Technologies 

The EPA and the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) have retrofit 

technology verification programs that 

evaluate the performance of advanced 

emissions control technologies and 

engine rebuild kits. CMAQ-funded 

diesel retrofit projects must use retrofit 

technologies that are verified under the 

EPA’s Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program 

or CARB. A list of EPA-verified 

technologies is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/

retroverifiedlist.htm. CARB’s 

verification program can be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/ 

home/home.htm. 

Refueling 

Refueling is eligible only when 

combined with an overall diesel retrofit 

project for which the cleaner fuel is 

required. For example, ultra-low sulfur 

diesel (ULSD) may be purchased as part 

of a project to install diesel particulate 

filters on highway construction 

equipment only because these devices 

require ULSD to function properly. 

Fuel-related technologies identified in 

EPA’s list of retrofit strategies are 

eligible only until standards for such 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN19DE06.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76055 

clean fuel are effective. For example, 

ULSD is eligible for CMAQ only until 

the standard is effective. For on-road 

use, ULSD is mandated for use in 

October 2006. According to EPA’s 

regulatory development calendar, low 

sulfur diesel (500 ppm of sulfur) will be 

required for nonroad use in 2007, while 

ULSD (15 ppm of sulfur) will be 

required for nonroad use in 2010. 

Vehicle/Equipment Replacement 

Projects 

Replacement projects occur when 

older vehicles/equipment are replaced 

with cleaner vehicles/equipment before 

they would have been removed through 

normal fleet turnover or attrition. The 

vehicle or equipment being replaced 

should be scrapped or the engine 

remanufactured to a cleaner standard. 

For areas that want to take credit in the 

SIP and transportation conformity 

processes for these projects, see the 

EPA’s retrofit guidance at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/policy.htm#retrofit. 

Generally, the replacement vehicle or 

equipment would perform the same 

function as the vehicle or equipment 

that is being replaced (e.g., an excavator 

used to dig pipelines or utility trenches 

would be replaced by an excavator that 

continues these duties). 

In addition, the vehicle or equipment 

being replaced would be in good 

working order and able to perform the 

duties of the new vehicle or equipment. 

Removing vehicles that no longer 

function or are at the end or their useful 

life will not lead to an emissions 

reduction. 

Repower or Engine Replacement 

Projects 

Engine replacement projects involve 

the replacement of an older, higher 

emitting engine with a newer, cleaner 

engine. Engine replacements can also be 

combined with emission control 

technologies. The engines being 

replaced should be scrapped or 

remanufactured to a cleaner standard. 

As noted above, for areas that want to 

take credit in the SIP and transportation 

conformity processes for these projects, 

see EPA’s retrofit guidance at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/policy.htm#retrofit. 

New engines also must be EPAcertified. For a complete list of all EPA 

certified large highway and nonroad 

engines, please consult the list at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm. 

For more information on diesel 

retrofits, please see the EPA’s National 

Clean Diesel Campaign Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/. 

[FR Doc. 06–9679 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES