Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31383 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation 

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) 

+Elevation in feet 

(NAVD) 

#Depth in feet 

above ground 

∧Elevation in meters (MSL) 

Communities affected 

Effective Modified 

Willow Run ................................................. At the confluence with Sycamore Creek .. +815 +816 City of Pickerington, 

Unincorporated 

Areas of Fairfield 

County. 

Approximately 250 feet downstream of 

Refugee Road.

None +918 

Wilson Creek .............................................. At the confluence with the Hocking River None +884 Unincorporated 

Areas of Fairfield 

County. 

Approximately 200 feet downstream of 

Mt. Zion Road.

None +903 

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. 

+ North American Vertical Datum. 

# Depth in feet above ground. 

∧ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter. 

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for 

exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. 

Send comments to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. 

ADDRESSES 

City of Lancaster 

Maps are available for inspection at 121 East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, OH 43130. 

City of Pickerington 

Maps are available for inspection at 100 Lockville Road, Pickerington, OH 43147. 

Unincorporated Areas of Fairfield County 

Maps are available for inspection at 210 East Main Street, Lancaster, OH 43130. 

Village of Baltimore 

Maps are available for inspection at 103 West Market Street, Baltimore, OH 42105. 

Village of Millersport 

Maps are available for inspection at 2245 Refugee Street, Millersport, OH 43046. 

Village of Thurston 

Maps are available for inspection at 2215 Main Street, Thurston, OH 43157. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: May 14, 2010. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administrator, Mitigation, Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13269 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 611 

[Docket No. FTA–2010–0009] 

RIN 2132–AB02 

Major Capital Investment Projects 

AGENCIES: Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks 

public comment regarding the Federal 

Transit Administration’s (FTA) New 

Starts and Small Starts project 

justification criteria. In particular, FTA 

seeks public input on how to improve 

its calculation of ‘‘cost effectiveness,’’ 

including whether FTA should measure 

quantifiable benefits other than reduced 

travel time. In addition, FTA seeks 

comment on how it should evaluate 

environmental benefits and economic 

development effects. Information 

gathered from this ANPRM will inform 

FTA’s broader effort, next year, to 

amend the regulations that govern its 

New Starts and Small Starts programs. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 2, 2010. Late-filed comments 

will be considered to the extent 

practicable. The public should know the 

dates, times, and locations of the first 

two public outreach sessions are as 

follows: (1) Monday, June 7, 4:30 p.m. 

to 6:30 p.m., EST, 500 South Salisbury 

Street, Raleigh, North Carolina (Raleigh 

Convention Center); (2) Tuesday, June 8, 

2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., PST, 655 Burrard 

Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, 

Canada V6C 2R7 (Hyatt Regency Hotel). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Day, Office of Planning and 

Environment, (202) 366–5159; for 

questions of a legal nature, Christopher 

Van Wyk, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 

366–1733. FTA is located at 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 

5:30 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number FTA– 

2010–0009 by any of the following 

methods: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
31384 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments on the U.S. Government 

electronic docket site. 

2. Fax: 202–493–2251. 

3. Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

4. Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name (Federal Transit 

Administration) and Docket number 

(FTA–2010–0009) for this notice at the 

beginning of your comments. You 

should submit two copies of your 

comments if you submit them by mail. 

If you wish to receive confirmation that 

FTA received your comments, you must 

include a self-addressed stamped 

postcard. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information provided and will 

be available to internet users. You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477). Docket: For access to the docket 

to read background documents and 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., EST, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

This ANPRM seeks new ideas through 

public comment on a funding program 

for new or expanded transit systems that 

involves a large amount of technical 

information and analysis. As such, this 

document is being issued to provide a 

general overview of FTA’s current 

approach to evaluating and rating major 

capital investment projects (‘‘New 

Starts’’ and ‘‘Small Starts’’) in support of 

its funding decisions, and, to ask 

questions that will assist FTA in its 

development of a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. Because this document 

avoids technical terminology and 

detailed discussion, it is necessary to 

refer to other sources where additional 

information can be obtained for 

commenters who would like to know 

more of the details behind FTA’s 

current process. To aid in that effort, 

FTA will place all of the documents 

cited in this notice in the public docket 

at www.regulations.gov under the 

docket number for this rulemaking effort 

(FTA–2010–0009). Interested persons 

may also consult the FTA public Web 

site, http://www.fta.dot.gov, for further 

information on these subjects. 

Background 

The New Starts and Small Starts 

programs, established in Section 

5309(d) and (e) of Title 49, U.S. Code, 

are FTA’s primary capital funding 

programs for new or extended transit 

systems across the country, including 

rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, bus 

rapid transit, and ferries. Under this 

discretionary program, proposed 

projects are evaluated and rated as they 

seek FTA approval for a multi-year 

federal funding commitment to finance 

project construction. Currently, overall 

ratings for New Starts and Small Starts 

proposed projects are based on 

summary ratings for two categories of 

criteria—project justification and local 

financial commitment. Within these two 

categories, projects are evaluated and 

rated against several individual criteria 

specified in statute. Details on how 

projects are currently evaluated and 

rated are set forth in the FTA 

regulations at 49 CFR Part 611, which 

can be found at the following web 

address: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

cfr_2008/octqtr/49cfr611.htm. 

Several statutory changes since 49 

CFR part 611 was first written have 

modified the evaluation process, 

including the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

enacted on August 10, 2005, and the 

SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections 

Act of 2008, signed on June 6, 2008. 

FTA’s most recent policy guidance on 

the evaluation process (issued to 

address the SAFETEA–LU Technical 

Corrections Act), was announced on 

July 29, 2009 and is available in the 

Federal Register at 74 FR 37763; it is 

also set forth in Appendix B of FTA’s 

‘‘FY 2011 Annual Report on Funding 

Recommendations’’ available at http:// 

www.fta.dot.gov/publications/reports/ 

reports_to_congress/ 

publications_11092.html. 

This ANPRM seeks comment on three 

of the evaluation criteria under the 

project justification category: Cost 

effectiveness, environmental benefits, 

and economic development benefits. 

Although FTA also evaluates other 

statutory criteria for projects, those 

other criteria will be addressed in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

following this ANPRM. 

Cost Effectiveness 

Since April of 2005, FTA has had in 

place a budget decision approach that 

required at least a Medium rating on 

cost effectiveness for a project to be 

considered for funding in the 

President’s annual budget. 

Members of the transit community 

criticized FTA’s approach on the cost 

effectiveness criterion, and questioned 

the methodology FTA uses to calculate 

cost effectiveness. Specifically, the 

transit community expressed concern 

that receiving a Low- or Medium-low 

cost effectiveness rating ‘‘trumped’’ other 

project justification criteria established 

by law. Critics also noted that 

sometimes projects were designed to 

achieve a Medium cost effectiveness 

rating to remain in the funding pipeline 

while sacrificing other potentially 

important considerations, such as 

station locations and/or design features 

to accommodate ridership growth. On 

January 13, 2010, Secretary Ray LaHood 

announced the end of that approach. 

This new direction presents FTA with 

an opportunity to rethink how it 

evaluates cost effectiveness for projects 

seeking New Starts and Small Starts 

funding. 

While the other project justification 

criteria characterize the effectiveness of 

projects in addressing the objectives 

identified by the statute, cost 

effectiveness characterizes the extent to 

which benefits are in scale with project 

costs. In its current cost effectiveness 

measure, FTA includes the direct 

mobility benefits of the project, 

expressed as time savings. FTA defines 

mobility benefits as any measurable 

change in travel times, walking, waiting, 

transfers, and other attributes of travel 

on the transportation system. FTA’s 

definition of mobility benefits includes 

time savings to highway users caused by 

congestion relief but FTA has not as yet 

been able to accept projections of 

highway time savings because of their 

unreliability and inconsistency. Instead, 

in determining cost effectiveness 

ratings, FTA credits all projects with an 

allowance for highway time savings that 

is equal to 20 percent of the projectspecific transit time savings. FTA is 

sponsoring research on better methods 

to predict highway time savings so that 

project-specific highway time savings 

can be included in the mobility benefits 

that are compared to project costs. 

FTA has not included other impacts 

among the project-specific benefits used 

to compute the current cost 

effectiveness measure because of the 

difficulties in summing, in a common 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31385 

unit of measurement, the broad range of 

other benefits. Instead, in determining 

cost effectiveness ratings, FTA credits 

all projects with an allowance for other 

benefits that is equal to 100 percent of 

the project-specific time savings. FTA is 

seeking comment in this ANPRM on 

ways to quantify and value other 

benefits so that they can be included as 

project-specific benefits, rather than a 

general allowance, in the comparison 

against project costs. 

For more information how FTA 

calculates cost effectiveness, see 

Appendix B of FTA’s ‘‘FY 2011 Annual 

Report on Funding Recommendations’’ 

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

publications/reports/reports_

to_congress/publications_11092.html. 

In general, quantitative measures 

require evaluating the incremental (or 

added) benefits of implementing a 

proposed project against some 

alternative. FTA is seeking comment on 

what the basis for comparison should 

be. Currently, New Starts and Small 

Starts projects are evaluated against a 

‘‘baseline alternative,’’ which is defined 

as the ‘‘best that can be done’’ to address 

identified transportation needs in the 

corridor without a major capital 

investment in new infrastructure. The 

baseline alternative generally includes 

lower cost actions such as traffic 

engineering, enhanced bus service and 

other transit operational changes, and 

modest capital improvements such as 

reserved lanes, park-and-ride lots, and 

transit terminals. Although less 

expensive than the proposed project, the 

baseline alternative may still result in 

substantial costs, particularly in 

complex study areas with significant 

transportation problems. 

Consistent with current law, FTA will 

continue to use cost effectiveness as one 

of the principal criteria for project 

justification. FTA is open to new ideas, 

however, regarding the direction the 

agency should take to improve how it 

evaluates cost effectiveness, including 

whether and how non-mobility benefits 

should be measured and how they could 

be calculated on a project-specific basis 

as part of that criterion, as well as how 

determinations of a baseline alternative 

could be improved if one continues to 

be used. 

Questions on Cost Effectiveness 

FTA seeks specific comment on the 

following questions: 

1. How might FTA better evaluate cost 

effectiveness? 

2. What, if any, additional benefits 

such as environmental benefits, equity 

considerations (e.g., the social benefits 

of low income ridership), and benefits 

of economic development attributed to 

a specific project could FTA include in 

the measure of cost effectiveness? What 

specific benefits should be included in 

the calculation of cost effectiveness? 

3. If you believe that FTA should 

include other benefits in the measure of 

cost effectiveness, how can FTA best 

quantify those benefits? Please include 

specifics on how FTA would quantify 

and measure these benefits. 

4. Are there simpler measures of cost 

effectiveness that FTA could use? If so, 

what are they? Please be specific. 

5. How should FTA evaluate projects 

across cities with varying levels of 

transit service? In other words, should 

FTA continue to compare projects 

against a ‘‘baseline alternative’’? Should 

FTA consider additional benefit 

categories such as convenience for 

riders, reduced congestion, reduced 

travel time as a result of reduced 

congestion, reduction in the number of 

accidents due to reduced congestion, 

fuel costs (or other variable cost) savings 

for individuals who would be using the 

projects and/or the benefit to national 

security of additional transportation 

options? If so, how should these be 

measured? 

6. Should FTA measure the benefits of 

projects based on the opening year of 

those projects or retain the current 

methodology which is based on the 

planning forecast year (which is 

approximately 20 years in the future)? 

Please explain the rationale for your 

response. If 20-year estimates are used, 

should FTA require project sponsors to 

support the reasonableness of their land 

use forecasts 20 years into the future? If 

so, how might project sponsors support 

their conclusions? Should FTA consider 

using forecasting periods other than 

opening year or 20-year? If so, what 

forecast year should FTA consider, and 

why? 

Environmental Benefits 

Since the environmental benefits 

criterion was first added as a project 

justification criterion in the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1991, FTA has attempted through 

various methods, with limited success, 

to meaningfully measure and compare 

the environmental benefits of transit 

projects in different environmental 

settings throughout the country. 

For a number of years, FTA used an 

air quality approach based on a regional 

forecast of the changes in vehicle miles 

of travel (VMT) for the proposed project 

compared to the New Starts baseline 

alternative in the forecast year. (See 

Appendix A in 49 CFR part 611 for 

more explanation of the baseline 

alternative.) The results of that approach 

proved unsatisfactory because any one 

project has only a minor effect on total 

regional air quality. The results also did 

not take into account the severity of the 

metropolitan area’s air quality problems 

or the size of the population exposed to 

polluted air. 

Although FTA has focused solely on 

air quality for environmental benefits, 

the statute is written broadly enough to 

allow FTA to take into account other 

factors such as noise pollution, energy 

consumption, reductions in local 

infrastructure costs achieved through 

compact land use development, and the 

cost of suburban sprawl. 

To gain a sharper perspective on the 

issue of environmental benefits, FTA 

convened a two-day colloquium in 

October 2008 in which a number of 

experts discussed different types of 

environmental benefits associated with 

transit projects. The record of that 

meeting (‘‘Comparing the Environmental 

Benefits of Transit Projects: Proceedings 

from a Colloquium—October 28 & 29, 

2008’’) is available at http:// 

www.fta.dot.gov/documents/ 

FTA_Environmental

BenefitProceedings.pdf and on compact 

disc through the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center. FTA is 

also actively participating in a Transit 

Cooperative Research Program study on 

the environmental benefits of transit 

projects. This work has helped to inform 

the questions posed below. 

Moreover, the President recently 

signed Executive Order 13514 (‘‘Federal 

Leadership in Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Performance’’; October 5, 

2009), which is germane to evaluating 

and rating the environmental benefits of 

New Starts and Small Starts projects. As 

part of a broad strategy, E.O. 13514 

obliges Federal agencies to advance 

integrated planning of infrastructure at 

regional and local levels; align Federal 

policies to promote sustainable 

technologies and opportunities for 

locally generated renewable energy; and 

take a leadership role in reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. FTA seeks to 

incorporate the goals and objectives of 

E.O. 13514 into the New Starts and 

Small Starts programs to maximize the 

land use efficiencies created through 

locating transit projects in areas that 

facilitate sustainable development. The 

text of E.O. 13514 is available at 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/ 

E9-24518.pdf. 

Questions on Environmental Benefits 

FTA seeks specific comment on the 

following questions: 

1. How might FTA better measure 

environmental benefits? 

2. In measuring environmental 

benefits, should FTA consider a broad 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
31386 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

definition of environment, as does the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

which includes consideration of both 

the human and natural environment? 

Or, should FTA focus on the 

environmental performance in specific 

areas such as air quality emissions, 

energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, 

or water quality? Should FTA look at 

project-specific environmental benefits 

such as change in energy use and/or 

pollutant emissions? Should FTA 

consider other characteristics such as 

assessing the degree to which a 

proposed New Starts project fits into a 

State or Regional Sustainability Plan or 

whether a transit agency’s capital 

program is operating under an official 

Environmental Management System 

(EMS) or has attained the EMS 

certification of the International 

Standards Organization (ISO 14001)? 

Would it be best to have a combination? 

Please be specific in what metrics you 

think should be considered. 

3. Should the environmental benefits 

evaluation consider the steps a project 

sponsor takes to mitigate the 

construction impacts of New Starts 

projects in addition to the 

environmental effects of their operation? 

Should the origin and methods to obtain 

construction or vehicle materials; 

energy type and use; and water 

consumption be considered in the 

overall evaluation of environmental 

benefits? 

4. Should FTA consider the reduction 

in single occupant vehicle usage as part 

of its evaluation of environmental 

benefits? What method should be used 

to measure the changes in vehicle miles 

travelled resulting from implementation 

of a project? Please be specific about 

how FTA should measure this. 

5. Should FTA consider certification 

of the planned facility through the 

Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) Green 

Building Rating System; low impact 

development of transit facilities; or 

energy production with windmills or 

solar panels? 

6. In measuring the environmental 

benefits of a project, how might FTA 

take into account the goals and 

objectives of Executive Order 13514? 

Should a project be evaluated and rated 

on how well it maximizes the land use 

efficiencies created through locating the 

project in areas that facilitate 

sustainable development? 

7. To what extent, if any, can 

technology improvements—lower 

carbon transport technologies, the use of 

emerging light weight materials, 

improved engine designs, or bio-fuel 

applications, for example—be said to 

reflect environmental benefits of transit 

proposals? How would such 

improvements be measured and 

compared? 

8. Should environmental benefits be 

included in the cost effectiveness 

measure? How can environmental 

benefits be compared across projects, 

and incorporated into FTA funding 

decisions? 

Economic Development Benefits 

FTA has defined economic 

development as the extent to which a 

proposed New Starts or Small Starts 

project is likely to enhance additional, 

transit-supportive development. 

Currently, FTA rates the economic 

development effects of major transit 

investments on the basis of the transitsupportive plans and policies in place 

and the demonstrated performance and 

impact of those policies. These ‘‘on the 

ground’’ indicators characterize the 

environment in which a project would 

be built and are not intended to predict 

future development outcomes. 

In order to guide future research in 

this area, FTA convened a panel of 

experts in late 2007 to consider the 

potential methodologies available for 

measuring the economic development 

effects of New Starts and Small Starts 

projects. Some experts on the panel 

noted that FTA may be able to achieve 

this goal in two ways: (1) Through the 

use of quantitative models to estimate 

the impacts of transit projects on land 

values; and (2) through the use of 

integrated transportation/land-use 

models to predict changes in land-use 

patterns that might result from transit 

projects and the various benefits 

associated with those changes. The 

record of that meeting (‘‘Measuring the 

Economic Development Benefits of 

Transit Projects: Proceedings of an 

Expert Panel Workshop,’’ March 2008) is 

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

documents/ 

Econ_Dev_Expert_Panel_Report.pdf. 

FTA is sponsoring two ongoing Transit 

Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) 

projects (Reference numbers H–39 and 

SH–12) to study the impact of transit on 

economic development. 

FTA also issued a discussion paper on 

new, alternative ways of evaluating 

economic development effects in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

January 26, 2009. This paper 

(‘‘Discussion Paper on the Evaluation of 

Economic Development,’’ October 2008) 

is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/ 

planning/newstarts/ 

planning_environment_5615.html. FTA 

received comments on the discussion 

paper from eleven respondents and has 

considered those comments in 

formulating the questions listed below. 

Questions on Economic Development 

Effects 

FTA seeks specific comment on the 

following questions: 

1. How might FTA better measure the 

impact of transit on local land use 

patterns and/or economic development? 

2. Should FTA continue to use its 

current approach for evaluating the 

economic development effects of major 

transit investments? 

3. Should FTA define economic 

development differently? If so, how? 

4. Should FTA use either a qualitative 

or a quantitative approach (or both) for 

evaluating the economic development 

effects of New Starts and Small Starts 

projects? Should FTA consider a 

qualitative approach for evaluating land 

use policies or a quantitative approach 

for predicting changes in land use 

values and patterns (or both) as a proxy 

for evaluating economic development 

benefits? 

5. What scale should be used to 

measure economic development? At a 

corridor level or at the metropolitan area 

level? 

6. How should FTA distinguish 

between the land use effects and the 

economic development effects of a 

proposed project? How should they be 

measured? 

7. Can a New Starts or Small Starts 

project generate new economic 

development that would otherwise not 

have occurred in the surrounding area? 

If so, how might that economic 

development be measured? Should FTA 

consider the overall economic health of 

a metropolitan area when estimating the 

potential for a New Starts or Small 

Starts project to foster economic 

development? 

8. How should FTA assess whether 

the plans, policies, and incentives 

intended to promote economic 

development would lead to transit 

oriented development that provides jobs 

and services within the corridor? 

Should FTA consider the economic 

development effects of the project on 

adjacent corridors? Should FTA 

consider commitments by developers or 

funding offered by developers as 

evidence of future economic 

development benefits? What time 

horizon should be used for considering 

economic development effects? 

9. Should FTA consider changes in 

land values as evidence of potential 

economic growth in a station area or 

project corridor? How would FTA 

quantify recent and future changes in 

land values? How can FTA avoid double 

counting benefits given that changes in 

land values may be caused in part by 

the improved accessibility from the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31387 

project that FTA already measures as 

part of cost effectiveness? Should FTA 

consider the extent to which existing 

affordable housing and commercial 

space can be maintained in the corridor 

after implementation of a transit project 

there? 

10. Should economic development be 

a part of the cost effectiveness measure? 

Public Outreach Sessions 

The meetings listed below are the first 

two in a series of outreach sessions that 

will provide a forum for FTA staff to 

make oral presentations on this ANPRM 

and allow meeting attendees an 

opportunity to pose questions to the 

speakers. Additionally, the sessions are 

intended to encourage interested parties 

and stakeholders to submit their 

comments directly to the official docket 

per the instructions found in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

Further outreach sessions, once 

scheduled, will be announced in a 

subsequent Federal Register notice. 

The dates, times, and locations of the 

first two public outreach sessions are: 

(1) Monday, June 7, 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm, 

EST, 500 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, 

NC 27601 (Marriott City Center Hotel), 

concurrent with the conference on 

‘‘Environment and Energy: Better 

Delivery of Better Transportation 

Solutions,’’ sponsored by the 

Transportation Research Board; (2) 

Tuesday, June 8, 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm, 

PST, Vancouver, British Columbia, 

Canada, 655 Burrard Street, Vancouver, 

British Columbia, Canada V6C 2R7 

(Hyatt Regency Hotel), concurrent with 

the ‘‘2010 Rail Conference’’ sponsored 

by the American Public Transportation 

Association. All locations are ADAaccessible. Individuals attending a 

meeting who are hearing or visually 

impaired and have special 

requirements, or a condition that 

requires special assistance or 

accommodations, should call Elizabeth 

Day, Office of Planning and 

Environment, at (202) 366–5159. 

Regulatory Notices 

All comments received on this 

ANPRM will be available for 

examination in the docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking is a significant 

regulatory action pursuant to section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and the 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures of 

the Department of Transportation (44 FR 

11032). This ANPRM was reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to regulate in the ‘‘most costeffective manner,’’ to make a ‘‘reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs,’’ 

and to develop regulations that ‘‘impose 

the least burden on society.’’ Because 

this ANPRM does not contain specific 

proposals, it is not possible at this time 

to perform a cost-benefit analysis. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

consider whether a proposed rule would 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘Small entities’’ include small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations under 50,000. Because 

this ANPRM does not contain specific 

proposals, it is not possible to perform 

that analysis at this time. This ANPRM 

does, however, seek input from the 

public, including small entities, on the 

implementation of the New Starts and 

Small Starts programs, including what, 

if any, significant economic impacts 

might result. 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to assure meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that may have a substantial, 

direct effect on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This ANPRM asks 

questions about FTA’s implementation 

of the New Starts and Small Starts 

programs, and FTA specifically invites 

State and local governments with an 

interest in this rulemaking to provide 

feedback on those questions. 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The U.S. DOT assigns a regulation 

identifier number (RIN) to each 

regulatory action listed in the Unified 

Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 

Regulatory Information Service Center 

publishes the Unified Agenda in April 

and October of each year. The RIN 

number contained in the heading of this 

document may be used to crossreference this action with the Unified 

Agenda. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 1st day of 

June, 2010. 

Peter Rogoff, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13423 Filed 6–1–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS- R4-ES-2010-0024]; 

[MO 92210-0-0009-B4] 

RIN 1018-AX25 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Mississippi Gopher Frog 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose to designate 

critical habitat for the Mississippi 

gopher frog (Rana sevosa) [= Rana 

capito sevosa] under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

A total of 792 hectares (1,957 acres) in 

11 units are proposed for critical habitat 

designation. The proposed critical 

habitat is located within Forrest, 

Harrison, Jackson, and Perry Counties, 

Mississippi. 

DATES: We will consider comments from 

all interested parties until August 2, 

2010. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by July 19, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0024. 

• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4- 

ES-2010-0024; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments section below for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 6578 Dogwood 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS