Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 35629

since it meets the requirements for that

status under INA 217, as amended.

Argentina does not require visas for

nationals of the United States entering

for ninety (90) days or less. Thus it

meets the requirement of providing

reciprocal treatment for United States

nationals. Other requirements are that

the country meet statutorily prescribed

limits on visa refusal rates for the prior

two year period as well as the prior

year; that it meet statutorily prescribed

limits on rates of exclusion at port of

entry and on overstay limits, and that it

have a machine readable passport

program. Argentina meets these

additional requirements. Argentina is,

therefore, added effective July 8, 1996 as

a participating country in the Visa

Waiver Pilot Program. (See the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

rule also published in this issue of the

Federal Register.) Therefore, effective

on the publication date of this interim

rule, citizens of Argentina shall be

eligible for participation in the Visa

Waiver Pilot Program.

Interim Rule

The implementation of this rule as an

interim rule, with a 30-day provision for

post-promulgation public comments, is

based upon the ‘‘good cause’’ exceptions

established by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and

553(d)(3). This rule grants or recognizes

an exemption or relieves a restriction

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and is

considered beneficial to both the

traveling public and United States

businesses. Therefore, it is being made

effective thirty days after publication in

the Federal Register. In accordance with

5 U.S.C. 605(b) [Regulatory Flexibility

Act], it is certified that this rule does not

have a ‘‘significant adverse economic

impact’’ on a substantial number of

small entities, because it is inapplicable.

This rule is exempt from E.O. 12866, but

has been coordinated with the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

because joint action of the Secretary of

State and the Attorney General is

required under section 217 of the INA,

as amended. The rule imposes no

reporting or record-keeping action from

the public requiring the approval of the

Office of Management and Budget under

the Paperwork Reduction Act

requirements. This rule has been

reviewed as required by E.O. 12988 and

is certified to be in compliance

therewith.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41

Aliens, Nonimmigrants, Visas,

Passports, Temporary Visitors, Waivers.

In view of the foregoing, 22 CFR Part

41 is amended as follows:

PART 41—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 41

continues to read:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104, 66 Stat. 174; 8

U.S.C. 1187, 108 Stat. 4312 and 4313.

2. In § 41.2 the last sentence of

paragraph (l)(2) is amended by removing

the period and adding the following text

at the end of the sentence:

§ 41.2 Waiver by Secretary of State and

Attorney General of passport and/or visa

requirements for certain categories of

nonimmigrants.

* * * * *

(l) Visa Waiver Pilot Program. * * *;

and Argentina July 8, 1996.

Dated: July 13, 1996.

Mary A. Ryan,

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs.

[FR Doc. 96–17194 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 630

[FHWA Docket No. 94–30]

RIN 2125–AD43

Federal-Aid Project Authorization

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending its

regulation on Federal-aid program

approval and project authorization. In

light of changes made by the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of

1991, in the area of statewide planning

and transportation improvement

programs, and the joint FHWA/Federal

Transit Administration (FTA)

regulations implementing those

changes, this regulation removes the

obsolete project programming

provisions from this part. This

regulation provides more flexible

funding arrangements and a more

flexible Federal-aid authorization

process. Changes contained in related

laws are included.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective August 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jack Wasley, Office of Engineering, 202–

366–4658, or Wilbert Baccus, Office of

the Chief Counsel, 202–366–0780,

FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20590. Office Hours

are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday except Federal

holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

amendments in this final rule are based

primarily on the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) published in the

February 17, 1995, Federal Register at

60 FR 9306 (FHWA Docket No. 94–30).

All comments received in response to

this NPRM have been considered in

adopting these amendments.

The initiation of work for

transportation projects funded under the

Federal-aid highway program is a twostep process. First, the State, in

cooperation and consultation with local

officials, as appropriate, through the

metropolitan and statewide planning

process, determines activities which

will be advanced with Federal funds

made available under title 23, United

States Code, and the Federal Transit Act

(49 U.S.C. 5301–5338) and develops a

Statewide program of projects for these

activities. Prior to passage of the

Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102–240,

105 Stat. 1914) (ISTEA), the

requirements for developing the

program of projects were found in 23

U.S.C. 105 and the implementing

regulations in 23 CFR part 630, subpart

A. With passage of the ISTEA, title 23,

U.S.C., was modified and the new

requirements concerning development

of a program of projects, now referred to

as the Statewide transportation

improvement program, are contained in

23 U.S.C. 135. The implementing

regulation for this section is in 23 CFR

part 450 and was initiated through

previous rulemaking actions.

Accordingly, those requirements

pertaining to a program of projects in 23

CFR part 630, subpart A, no longer need

to be retained. This final rule therefore

eliminates these programming

references.

The second step in initiation of work

is the project authorization process. The

State highway agency (SHA) requests

FHWA authorization to proceed with a

proposed Federal-aid highway project.

The FHWA authorization commits the

Federal government to participate in the

funding of a project, except in those

instances where the State requests

FHWA authorization without the

commitment of Federal funds. In

addition, FHWA authorization also

establishes a point in time after which

costs incurred on a project are eligible

for Federal participation. The

requirements covering project

authorization are contained in this final

rule. The following is a section-bysection analysis of the amendments
35630 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

made by this final rule to the present

regulations.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 630.102 Purpose

The statement of purpose is revised to

eliminate the reference to programming

of projects since this activity is

eliminated from this subpart.

Section 630.104 Applicability

The existing § 630.104, Definitions, is

replaced by a new section identifying

the types of projects that are covered by

this subpart. FHWA planning and

research funds, as defined in 23 CFR

420.103, are authorized using the

procedures in the regulations dealing

specifically with these types of funded

projects. Projects utilizing special

funding may have unique authorization

requirements, and these types of

projects will be authorized as set out in

implementing instructions or

regulations.

Section 630.106 Authorization to

Proceed

The current § 630.106, Policy, is

removed. A new § 630.106,

Authorization to proceed, is

redesignated from current § 630.114,

covering the authorization process, and

it retains many of the basic principles

set forth in existing § 630.114.

Modifications were made to provide

greater flexibility in some funding areas,

and other additions were made for

clarification. The following discussion

breaks down new § 630.106 by

individual paragraph.

Paragraph (a) retains the requirement

that FHWA authorization to proceed

with a Federal-aid project will only be

given in response to a request from the

SHA, and then only if the applicable

requirements in law have been satisfied

for the project.

Paragraph (b) retains the longstanding

requirement that Federal-aid funds will

only participate in costs incurred after

the date the FHWA has authorized the

State to proceed with the project.

However, exceptions to this requirement

are allowed under a process set forth in

23 CFR 1.9(b). For informational

purposes, wording has been included in

paragraph (b) to identify and cross

reference the exception process.

Paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) retain the

requirement that, at the time a Federalaid project is authorized, the total

amount of appropriate Federal funds for

the project must be available. Four

general categories of exceptions to this

rule are retained from the existing

regulation. A fifth category of

exceptions in the existing regulation,

related to bond issue projects under 23

U.S.C. 122, has been eliminated. Section

311 of the National Highway System

Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–

59, 109 Stat. 568)(NHS Act), enacted

November 28, 1995, significantly

revised 23 U.S.C. 122. Previously,

section 122 allowed certain types of

projects to be approved as bond issue

projects. Similar to advance

construction, these projects were

advanced as Federal-aid projects

without any commitment of Federal

funds until the bonds matured and the

State converted the projects to regular

Federal-aid. As amended, section 122

makes bond related costs eligible for

Federal reimbursement on any Federalaid project; however, the process of

converting bond issue projects similar to

advance construction projects is no

longer set forth in the section. As a

result, paragraph (c) of § 630.106 has

dropped bond issue projects from the

listing of exceptions.

Paragraph (f) is added for purposes of

clarification. The FHWA authorization

represents a contractual action by the

FHWA, and the Federal share of eligible

costs must be agreed upon when the

authorization occurs. The Federal share

may be in the form of a specified

percentage of eligible costs or a lump

sum amount. Use of the lump sum share

is intended to accommodate those

instances where there is a desire to

commit a fixed amount of Federal funds

to a project. The lump sum amount may

not exceed the legal pro rata share for

the Federal funds involved; this may

require downward adjustment of the

lump sum amount when costs of eligible

work on a project are less than the

initial estimates at the time of FHWA

authorization.

The Federal share agreed to at the

time of FHWA authorization is to

continue through the life of the project.

Manipulation of funding levels of

individual projects to accommodate

program funding changes or needs is not

allowed. However, adjustments to the

Federal share are permitted for projects

where bid prices are significantly

different from the estimates at the time

of FHWA authorization and should be

made prior to, or shortly after, contract

award.

In addition, Federal participation is

based on eligible costs incurred by the

State. The Federal share of such costs

cannot exceed the maximum share

permitted by legislation.

Paragraph (g) incorporates into the

regulation the provision in 23 U.S.C.

120(i) that allows a State to contribute

more than the normal State match on a

Federal-aid project. This provision has

been interpreted to mean that a State

may overmatch and not be tied to a

mandatory Federal share. However,

project financing proposals that result in

the Federal share representing only a

minor percentage of eligible work

should be avoided unless they are based

on sound project management

decisions.

Discussion of Comments

Interested persons were invited to

participate in the development of this

final rule by submitting written

comments on the NPRM to FHWA

Docket No. 94–30 on or before April 18,

1995. There were 10 commenters to this

docket, all representing State

transportation agencies.

Three State transportation agencies

specifically endorsed the proposed

rewrite of the regulation. The other State

agencies raised several issues for

consideration, which have been grouped

into the following categories: (1) Third

party (private) cash donations; (2) token

financing; (3) the relationship of this

rulemaking to FHWA’s innovative

financing test and evaluation project;

and (4) establishing a project’s Federal

share.

Third Party Cash Donations

This issue received the most

comments. The NPRM proposed to

include a new provision in the

regulation that would clearly set forth

the cost sharing principles for Federalaid highway projects, including the

requirement at the time the NPRM was

issued that a third party cash

contribution to a specific project could

not be applied to the required State

matching share but instead had to be

applied to reduce the overall project

cost. The commenters felt the

requirement on third party donations

was overly restrictive, diminished the

incentive for States to seek third party

contributions, and could adversely

affect the advancement of certain

projects. Although these points are well

taken, the requirement on third party

cash contributions, as stated in the

NPRM, reflected a legal interpretation

consistent with title 23 as it existed at

that time.

A significant change has occurred in

Federal highway law related to third

party donations since the NPRM was

issued. The NHS Act amended 23 U.S.C.

322 to allow the value of third party

funds, materials, or services donated to

a specific Federal-aid project to be

applied to the State’s matching share.

Thus, Congress has provided legislative

relief on this matter.

The FHWA has issued implementing

guidance on 23 U.S.C. 322 and the

application of third party donations of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 35631

funds, materials, or services towards the

State’s matching share. That guidance is

available for review in FHWA Docket

No. 94–30 in the FHWA Docket Room

at the address listed above. Accordingly,

the matter of third party contributions

will not be addressed in this regulation.

Token Financing

Several commenters expressed

concern about the NPRM provision on

‘‘token financing’’ and the

accompanying preamble discussion

which suggested that, as a general rule

of thumb, Federal funding for a specific

project should represent at least 50

percent of eligible project costs. It was

pointed out that the phrase ‘‘token

financing’’ is vague and not clearly

defined in the regulation. Further, the

NPRM preamble discussion that

suggested a project have at least a target

Federal funding level of ‘‘50 percent’’

was interpreted as being too inflexible.

Several commenters recommended a

lower percentage threshold or a

minimum dollar figure.

Section 630.106(g) of the final rule

adds a new provision to implement 23

U.S.C. 120(i) which allows the State to

contribute more than the normal State

match on a project. The phrase ‘‘token

financing’’ has not been used in the

regulation. Instead, the concept of

‘‘token financing’’ has been expressed in

the phrase, ‘‘project financing proposals

that result in the Federal share

representing only a minor percentage of

eligible work should be avoided.’’ The

phrase ‘‘minor percentage’’ has not been

defined, by a specific value or a general

target value, in either the regulation or

this preamble and considerable

flexibility is intended. As expressed in

§ 630.106(g), this provision is to be

applied based on sound project

management decisions. For example, it

would make little sense to place small

amounts of Federal funds in a large

number of projects. This could

overburden the FHWA and would

unnecessarily Federalize a large number

of projects. It is expected that a State

and FHWA division office will reach

agreement on a reasonable

implementation of this requirement

based on project circumstances.

Relationship of This Rulemaking to

FHWA’s Innovative Financing Test and

Evaluation Project

In 1994, the FHWA established a

nationwide innovative financing test

and evaluation project, known as TE–

045, to evaluate new financing concepts

to increase investment or reduce public

agency costs on Federal-aid highway

projects. Under TE–045, numerous

concepts are currently being evaluated.

Two of these concepts, ‘‘phased

funding’’ and ‘‘tapered share,’’ were

mentioned by commenters on the NPRM

as issues that could be addressed in this

regulation.

When the FHWA authorizes a State to

proceed with a Federal-aid highway

project, the FHWA is required to

obligate Federal funds for the full

Federal share of the cost of the work

being authorized. Phased funding is an

exception to this requirement. Under

phased funding, the FHWA obligates an

amount of Federal funds for each year

a project is under construction, the

annual amount obligated being equal to

the estimated project construction

expenditures expected in the year.

Thus, phased funding is a financing

technique that can accelerate project

advancement because a State can

proceed with project construction before

the full Federal share of the cost of the

work is available to the State.

Previously, under § 630.114(h)(5), the

FHWA Administrator had the authority,

in special cases, to allow a project to

proceed without the full Federal share

of costs being available to a State. This

authority had been used to approve

phased funding on a small number of

very costly Interstate projects. Early on,

TE–045 accepted proposals to

experiment further with the phased

funding concept; however, no

additional proposals are planned for

testing. This is because of the FHWA’s

1995 revision of its policy on advance

construction projects that now allows an

advance construction project to be

converted to a regular Federal-aid

project in increments over time. Partial

conversion of advance construction

projects can accomplish much of the

same flexibility that phased funding

provides a State. As a result, the FHWA

has decided there is no need at this time

to modify the phased funding authority

the Administrator has under this

regulation. The provision that allows

the Administrator to approve special

case exceptions for phased funding is

retained as § 630.106(c)(4).

Tapered share is an alternate means of

making project reimbursement to a

State. Under the tapered share concept,

the Federal share of costs incurred can

vary as reimbursement is provided to a

State, as long as the overall Federal

funding provided to the State does not

exceed the amount of Federal funds

obligated when the project was

authorized. For example, on a project

that is being cost shared at 80 percent

Federal, 20 percent State, the State’s

billings to the FHWA are normally

reimbursed with Federal funds at 80

percent of the billed amount. However,

the tapered share concept could be

applied to allow a State to receive 100

percent Federal funds on early billings

with the Federal share tapering off on

later billings.

The tapered share concept is a

reimbursement or payment issue, not an

authorization issue. Because this

regulation covers authorization

requirements, the tapered share concept

will not be addressed in this regulation.

The FHWA continues to evaluate the

tapered share concept under TE–045

and it is expected that any proposals to

allow this concept, including

recommendations on needed statutory

changes, will emerge from TE–045.

Establishing a Project’s Federal Share

In the NPRM, § 630.106(f) was

proposed to clarify that the Federal

share could be established either as a

percentage of eligible project costs or as

a lump sum amount, provided the lump

sum amount did not exceed the

maximum legal percentage allowed for

the Federal-aid funding being used on

the project.

One commenter suggested another

alternative, i.e., that the authorization

would specify a percentage with a

maximum amount of Federal funds also

specified. If a State establishes Federal

share as a percentage, any decision to

further impose an upper limit on

additional Federal funds it will provide

to a project, should overruns occur, is a

State decision. This decision has no

impact on the amount of Federal funds

being obligated on the project when the

FHWA initially authorizes the work

because the amount of Federal funds

obligated would still be determined

based on the specified Federal share

percentage. Consequently, this proposed

alternative has not been incorporated

into the regulation. If a State desires to

set an upper limit for Federal funding

on a project where Federal share has

been established by percentage and

desires to alert all parties involved with

the project of the limit, one means of

accomplishing this is with an

appropriate note on the Federal-aid

project agreement.

Several comments were received

concerning the adjustment of Federal

share during the life of a project. The

authorization of a project, with the

accompanying obligation of Federal

funds, is a contractual action by the

FHWA, which has been viewed as fixing

or establishing the Federal share of the

project. The FHWA’s longstanding

position has been that Federal share

could not be adjusted after the initial

project authorization. Recognizing that

some flexibility is desirable, particularly

in situations involving construction

work where bid prices are significantly
35632 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

different from the engineer’s estimate on

which the initial authorization of

construction is based, the NPRM

proposed to allow the Federal share to

be adjusted after authorization to reflect

bids received.

One commenter suggested eliminating

the provision that Federal share is

established at authorization and

replacing it with a requirement that

Federal share be established when the

Federal-aid project agreement is

executed, after which it could not be

adjusted. This suggestion is not being

implemented. The timing of when a

Federal-aid project agreement is

executed for a project can vary

considerably, with it sometimes being

combined directly with the

authorization and sometimes following

the authorization by several weeks.

Keeping in mind that the FHWA’s

authorization is a legally binding action

on the agency’s part, it is at this point

that the Federal share being committed

to the project needs to be clearly

defined.

Other commenters suggested that a

State be allowed to continue to make

adjustments to Federal share throughout

the life of a project. Allowing these

adjustments raises several concerns.

How many times could changes be

made? Would changes be allowed after

construction is physically completed?

Could changes be retroactive and

applied to costs already incurred? What

are the Federal fiscal implications of

unrestricted changes? At this time, the

decision has been made not to expand

flexibility for adjusting Federal share

beyond that proposed in the NPRM,

namely, that Federal share could be

adjusted based on the bids received. The

final rule has added clarifying language

to indicate that any such adjustment

should occur before or shortly after

award of the contract.

Another comment concerned Federal

shares for various project activities. The

commenter appears to be interpreting

the word ‘‘project’’ to include all work

phases of a project, such as design,

right-of-way, and construction. The

commenter was concerned that if a

specific Federal share was established

for design work, a State would be locked

into using that same Federal share on all

subsequent activities, such as the

construction work. This is not the intent

of the regulation. The term ‘‘project’’ is

intended to mean that particular activity

or phase of work for which Federal

funds are being authorized. Federal

share is established for each individual

authorization. Design work could be

authorized at one Federal share and

construction work later authorized at a

different Federal share.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this

action is not a significant regulatory

action within the meaning of Executive

Order 12866 or significant within the

meaning of Department of

Transportation regulatory policies and

procedures. The amendments would

simply make minor changes to update

the Federal-aid project authorization

regulations to conform to recent laws,

regulations, and guidance, and to clarify

existing policies. It is anticipated that

the economic impact of this rulemaking

will be minimal because the

amendments would only clarify or

simplify procedures presently being

used by SHAs. Therefore, a full

regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the

FHWA has evaluated the effects of this

rule on small entities. Based on the

evaluation, the FHWA certifies that this

action would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The proposed

amendments would only clarify or

simplify procedures used by SHA’s in

accordance with existing laws,

regulations, or guidance.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism

Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this action does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a federalism assessment.

This action merely conforms the

Federal-aid project authorization

regulations to recent laws, regulations,

and guidance; clarifies these

regulations; and gives the SHAs more

flexibility in implementing them.

Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program Number 20.205,

Highway Planning and Construction.

The regulations implementing Executive

Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to

this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain a

collection of information requirement

for purposes of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Agency has analyzed this action

for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et.seq.) and has determined

that this action would not have any

effect on the quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned 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 contained

in the heading of this document can be

used to cross reference this action with

the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 630

Government contracts, Grant

programs—transportation, Highways

and roads, Project authorization.

Issued on: June 26, 1996.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

FHWA is amending title 23, Code of

Federal Regulations, by revising part

630, subpart A to read as follows:

PART 630—PRECONSTRUCTION

PROCEDURES

Subpart A—Federal-Aid Project

Authorization

Sec.

630.102 Purpose.

630.104 Applicability.

630.106 Authorization to proceed.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106, 118, 120, and

315; 49 CFR 1.48(b).

Subpart A—Federal-Aid Project

Authorization

§ 630.102 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to

prescribe policies for authorizing

Federal-aid projects.

§ 630.104 Applicability.

(a) This regulation is applicable to all

Federal-aid projects unless specifically

exempted.

(b) Projects financed with FHWA

planning and research funds, as defined

in 23 CFR 420.103 are not covered by

this subpart. These projects are to be

handled in accordance with 23 CFR

parts 420 and 450.

(c) Other projects which involve

special procedures shall be authorized

as set out in the implementing

instructions for those projects.

§ 630.106 Authorization to proceed.

(a) The FHWA issuance of an

authorization to proceed with a Federal-
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 35633

aid project shall be in response to a

written request from the State highway

agency (SHA). Authorization can be

given only after applicable prerequisite

requirements of Federal laws and

implementing regulations and directives

have been satisfied.

(b) Federal funds shall not participate

in costs incurred prior to the date of

authorization to proceed except as

provided by 23 CFR 1.9(b).

(c) Authorization of a Federal-aid

project shall be deemed a contractual

obligation of the Federal government

under 23 U.S.C. 106 and shall require

that appropriate funds be available at

the time of authorization for the total

agreed Federal share, either pro rata or

lump sum, of the cost of eligible work

to be incurred by the State, except as

follows:

(1) Advance construction projects

authorized under 23 U.S.C. 115.

(2) Projects for preliminary studies for

the portion of the preliminary

engineering and right-of-way (ROW)

phase(s) through the selection of a

location.

(3) Projects for ROW acquisition in

hardship and protective buying

situations through the selection of a

particular location. This includes ROW

acquisitions within a potential highway

corridor under consideration where

necessary to preserve the corridor for

future highway purposes. Authorization

of work under this paragraph shall be in

accordance with the provisions of 23

CFR part 712.

(4) In special cases where the Federal

Highway Administrator determines it to

be in the best interest of the Federal-aid

highway program.

(d) The authorization to proceed with

a project under 23 CFR 630.106(c)(1)

through (c)(4) shall contain the

following statement: ‘‘Authorization to

proceed shall not constitute any

commitment of Federal funds, nor shall

it be construed as creating in any

manner any obligation on the part of the

Federal government to provide Federal

funds for that portion of the undertaking

not fully funded herein.’’

(e) When a project has received an

authorization under 23 CFR

630.106(c)(2) and (c)(3), subsequent

authorizations beyond the location stage

shall not be given until appropriate

available funds have been obligated to

cover eligible costs of the work covered

by the previous authorization.

(f)(1) The Federal-aid share of eligible

project costs shall be established at the

time of project authorization in one of

the following manners:

(i) Pro rata, with the authorization

stating the Federal share as a specified

percentage, or

(ii) Lump sum, with the authorization

stating that Federal funds are limited to

a specified dollar amount not to exceed

the legal pro rata.

(2) The pro-rata or lump sum share

may be adjusted before or shortly after

contract award to reflect any substantive

change in the bids received as compared

to the SHA’s estimated cost of the

project at the time of FHWA

authorization, provided that Federal

funds are available.

(3) Federal participation is limited to

the agreed Federal share of eligible costs

incurred by the State, not to exceed the

maximum permitted by enabling

legislation.

(g) The State may contribute more

than the normal non-Federal share of

title 23, U.S.C., projects. In general,

financing proposals that result in only

minimal amounts of Federal funds in

projects should be avoided unless they

are based on sound project management

decisions.

[FR Doc. 96–17232 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 901

[Docket No. FR–3447–F–02]

RIN 2577–AA89

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Public and Indian Housing; Public

Housing Management Assessment

Program—Conforming Change

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule removes the

adjustment for the heating degree day

(HDD) factor from Indicator #4, Energy

Consumption, of the Public Housing

Management Assessment Program

(PHMAP) at 24 CFR part 901. The effect

of removing this adjustment is to

conform the indicator to current HUD

practice, which no longer makes use of

the HDD factor.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

MaryAnn Russ, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Public and Assisted

Housing Operations, Office of Public

and Indian Housing, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, 451

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

20410, telephone (202) 708–1380. A

telecommunications device for hearing

or speech impaired persons (TTY) is

available at (202) 708–0850. (These are

not toll-free telephone numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 13, 1994 (59 FR 51852), a final

rule was published in the Federal

Register that eliminated the application

of the HDD factor for utility

consumption. That rule will first affect

PHAs with fiscal year ending December

31, 1995. The PHMAP scores for these

PHAs are computed as of June 30, 1996.

This rule makes a conforming change to

eliminate the HDD factor as an

adjustment in Indicator #4, Energy

Consumption.

The Department has published a

proposed rule (61 FR 20358, May 6,

1996) that would revise all of the

PHMAP, including the current Indicator

#4. However, because a comprehensive

PHMAP final rule will not be published

in time to correct Indicator #4 for the

June 1996 PHMAP computation, HUD is

issuing this final rule to remove the

HDD factor. This action will avoid

confusion and permit the timely

computation of PHMAP scores.

Other Matters

Justification for Final Rulemaking

In general, the Department publishes

a rule for public comment before issuing

a rule for effect, in accordance with its

own regulations on rulemaking, 24 CFR

part 10. However, part 10 does provide

for exceptions from that general rule

where the agency finds good cause to

omit advance notice and public

participation. The good cause

requirement is satisfied when prior

public procedure is ‘‘impracticable,

unnecessary, or contrary to the public

interest.’’ (24 CFR 10.1) The Department

finds that good cause exists to publish

this rule for effect without first

soliciting public comment, in that prior

public procedure is unnecessary. This

rule eliminates an adjustment factor that

can no longer be used because of other

regulatory changes.

Environmental Impact

A Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) with respect to the

environment has been made in

accordance with HUD regulations at 24

CFR part 50, which implement section

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969. The FONSI made in

the development of the proposed rule

published on May 6, 1996 (61 FR 20358)

remains applicable to this final rule and

is available for public inspection

between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.

weekdays in the Office of the Rules

Docket Clerk at the above address.