Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/07/18/02-18007/planning-and-research-program-administration
Timestamp: 2017-10-22 05:11:04
Document Index: 776159695

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 420', 'art 420', '§\u20091201', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', 'art 18', 'art 18', 'art 420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', 'art 420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', 'ART 420', 'art?\n420', '§\u2009420', 'art 18', 'art 19', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', 'art 450', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', 'art 26', 'arts 200', 'art 21', 'art 401', '§\u2009401', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420']

Federal Register :: Planning and Research Program Administration
A Rule by the Federal Highway Administration on 07/18/2002
67 FR 47268
47268-47278 (11 pages)
FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2001-8874
2125-AE84
02-18007
Subpart B—Research, Development, and Technology Transfer Program Management
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-18007 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-18007
This document amends the regulation on planning and research program administration to reflect legislative changes due to enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). It removes provisions that are no longer necessary, makes several changes in terminology, and incorporates revisions based upon comments received during the notice of proposed rulemaking. Most notable among the changes are renumbering of a State planning and research (SPR) funds section (i) that now allow a State department of transportation (State DOT) to be reimbursed for indirect costs; and changes in the Federal-aid highway program categories from which SPR funds are set aside.
For 23 CFR part 420, subpart A: Mr. Tony Solury, (202) 366-5003, Office of Planning and Environment, HEP-2, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; for 23 CFR part 420, subpart B: Jowell Parks or William Zaccagnino, Office of Program Development and Evaluation, HRPD-1, (202) 493-3166, Federal Highway Administration, Research, Development, and Technology Service Business Unit, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101. For legal questions: Reid Alsop, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-1371. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Docket Facility, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL) http://dmses.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a computer, modem, and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/​fedreg and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov.
On November 27, 2001, the FHWA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (66 FR 59188) to obtain comments from interested persons on proposed revisions to the regulation. Changes to the existing regulation were made to reflect the TEA-21 legislation and to eliminate outdated regulatory references. New language was added to encourage sharing of research results, pooling of funds, and the promotion of new technology. In addition, the phrase “peer review” was changed to “peer exchange” to reflect the underlying philosophy that—rather than an audit—the peer exchange is an opportunity to share best practices and foster excellence in research, development, and technology transfer (RD&T) program management.
The FHWA's regulations for Planning and Research Program Administration were last revised on July 22, 1994, (59 FR 37548) prior to the enactment of the TEA-21 (Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998)). Section 5119(b) of the TEA-21 repealed the SPR funds section in 23 U.S.C. 307(c) and section 5105 of the TEA-21 added a new SPR funds section 505 to title 23, U.S. Code. Changes in the Federal-aid highway program in the TEA-21 also resulted in changes in the Federal-aid highway program categories from which SPR funds are set aside. Section 1212 of the TEA-21 revised 23 U.S.C. 302 to allow a State DOT to be reimbursed for indirect costs.
Based on experience since the 1994 revision, changes were made to refine definitions and to clarify the meaning and applicability of several sections of the regulation. For example, the phrase “peer review” has been replaced with “peer exchange” to describe the transfer of RD&T related information and best practices between State DOTs, the FHWA, universities and public and private sector transportation organizations. The phrase “transportation pooled fund study” is used to replace the regional and national distinctions and to reflect current practice. Also, the FHWA made further clarification regarding the conditions under which the non-Federal share of an SPR or metropolitan planning (PL) funded project may be waived. Start Printed Page 47269
Two commenters expressed displeasure with the question and answer (Q&A) format.
The FHWA has rewritten the rule using the guidelines established in the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook under the section Making Regulations Readable. The handbook's guidance reflects the directives outlined in the June 1, 1998, Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” (3 CFR, 1999 Comp., p. 289) available online at http://www.access.gpo.gov/​nara/​cfr/​waisidx99/​other99.html.
Two commenters mentioned that the abbreviation STD was an inappropriate one due to its negative connotations.
The term “State transportation department” is included in section 302 of title 23, U.S. Code. In addition § 1201 of TEA-21 amended 23 U.S.C. 101 to remove “State highway department” and added the term “State transportation department.” The abbreviation “STD” was simply derivative. However, we understand and appreciate the commenter's concerns and have changed STD to State DOT where appropriate. In addition, a definition of State DOT has been added in § 420.103. For consistency with the legislation, the definition is the same as that included in section 101 of title 23, U.S.C for State department of transportation, which is defined as that department, commission, board, or official of any State charged by its laws with the responsibility for highway construction.
In response to a recent assessment of the FHWA's 1998 restructuring, the title Program Manager for Planning and Environment has been changed to Associate Administrator for Planning and Environment and the title Director of Research, Development and Technology has been changed to Associate Administrator for Research, Development and Technology in the final rule.
In § 420.103, we replaced “designated by the Administrators of the FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)” in the definition of transportation management area with “designated by the Secretary of Transportation” to be consistent with legislative language in 23 U.S.C. 134(i).
We added the words “covering no less than one year” to the definition of the term Work Program. We felt it is important to clarify that work programs of less than one year in duration should not be submitted because of administrative burden that would be involved.
In § 420.105(a)(1), we replaced “intermodal” with “local public transportation” to be consistent with legislative language in 23 U.S.C. 505(a)(2) that states that FHWA planning funds can be used for the planning of future highway programs and local public transportation systems and the planning of financing of such programs and systems, including metropolitan and statewide planning under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135.
Regarding the consultation with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), one State DOT mentioned that the use of the phrase “consultation with MPOs” was preferred over the use of “in cooperation with MPOs.” The State DOT observed that the term “consultation” gives States greater flexibility in working with local governments (§ 420.109).
The term “consultation” used in the regulation is the correct term. The term “cooperation” was inadvertently used in the preamble to discuss changes made in § 420.109. The final rule contains the term “consultation” and not “cooperation.”
Four commenters supported the “flexibility” provided in § 420.109 that allows State PL fund distribution formulas to include provisions for using PL funds for activities that benefit all MPOs in the State or for discretionary awards to MPOs.
This flexibility has always been allowed, but was not reflected in the previous regulations. All PL funds apportioned to a State must be made available by the State to the MPOs in accordance with a formula developed by the State in consultation with the MPOs and approved by the FHWA. Therefore, any “hold back” of PL funds by the State for such uses must be reflected in the approved formula. However, it is not necessary for the formula to reflect the situation where an MPO(s) has received its PL fund allocation based on the State formula to choose to allow the State to perform work for the MPO(s) with PL funds.
One commenter indicated that the provisions in § 420.109(d) and (e) that allow use of excess PL funds for planning outside of metropolitan areas would also be helpful.
Both of these provisions were in the previous regulation and are based on legislative provisions. Under the legislation, each State receives a minimum of one-half of one percent of the annual PL fund apportionments regardless of the States population in urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population. In these minimum PL apportionment States, the State DOT may use PL funds not needed for metropolitan planning for transportation planning outside of metropolitan areas after considering the views of the affected MPOs and with the approval of the FHWA. In States that receive more than the one-half of one percent minimum apportionment, the MPOs may make PL funds not needed by them for metropolitan planning available to the State for statewide transportation planning with the approval of the FHWA.
One State DOT requested that States be allowed the option of continuing to charge pro-rata costs of administrative salaries to SPR funds or of using an indirect cost rate as required in revised § 420.113. This commenter also suggested that the language regarding annual updates and approvals be combined in paragraph (b) of § 420.113 rather than being separated into paragraphs (b) and (c).
Prior to enactment of TEA-21, State DOTs could not claim reimbursement for indirect costs, such as those of supervisory personnel and support staff who did not work directly on grant supported activities, for FHWA funded projects. However, we did allow a share of the salaries of such personnel in the State DOT planning and research units to be charged directly based on the percent of work in these units that was performed with FHWA planning and research funds. One of the basic criteria in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments revised May 4, 1995, (available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/​omb/​circulars/​a087/​toc.html) is that costs be treated consistently in order to be allowed to be charged to Federal grants. Now that Start Printed Page 47270State DOTs can charge indirect costs to all FHWA projects, it would be inappropriate to continue this pro-rata charge for selected units of the State DOT. In addition there is a potential the portion of these salaries that are charged directly would mistakenly be included with the remainder of the salaries in the State DOTs indirect cost pool. This would result in these costs being recovered both directly and indirectly, which is not permitted. Therefore, the final rule retains the revision to this provision proposed in the NPRM. Effective with the first State DOT fiscal year beginning after the effective date of this rule indicated above, these salaries may no longer be charged on a pro-rata basis.
One State DOT asked for clarification of the term “third-party” as opposed to “subrecipient” in § 420.119 and asked if a local government receiving metropolitan planning funds is a subrecipient or a third-party and that definitions of these terms be included in the regulation. This same commenter asked if the “new requirement” that the use of in-kind contributions be approved in advance by the FHWA would be made retroactive for current programs or projects.
Since local governments, which by definition in OMB Circular A-87 and U.S. DOT grant regulations at 49 CFR part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (available online at http://www.access.gpo.gov/​ecfr), includes agencies such as councils of government and regional planning agencies that provide MPO staff services, receive FHWA planning and research funds through the State DOTs and not directly from the FHWA, local governments and other agencies that receive these funds are subrecipients. As defined in 49 CFR part 18, “third party in-kind contributions mean property or services which benefit a federally assisted project or program and which are contributed by non-Federal third parties without charge to the grantee, or a cost-type contractor under the grant agreement.” A local government can be both a subrecipient and a “third-party.” For example, if the local government receives Federal funds from a State DOT or MPO, it would be a subrecipient of the State or MPO; a local government that donates services (such as collection of traffic data) to a State DOT or MPO without charge would be a third-party and the State DOT or MPO could use the value of the donated services to match the Federal funds expended by the State or MPO. Since these terms are defined in other regulations that are cited in 23 CFR part 420, we have not added the definitions. The requirement that use of in-kind contributions as the match for FHWA planning and research funds is not retroactive. However, it has always been required that the source of matching funds be identified.
One State DOT commented that the provision for waiver of matching in § 420.119(d) would have positive impacts where local match is difficult for an MPO to obtain.
As indicated in § 420.119(d), the waiver provision is not intended for individual situations such as this, but to encourage State DOTs and MPOs to pool their SPR or PL funds to address issues of common concern.
One State DOT mentioned that it did not support the concept in § 420.207 that RDT studies funded under previous work programs should be shown in subsequent work programs because it would create extra paperwork. It mentioned that this is a tracking issue and that the work program is not a tracking tool.
The work program is a mandatory requirement used to justify expenditure of State planning and research funds. If there is no commitment of funds on a given study during the work program period and the study is incomplete (e.g., awaiting review of final report, etc.), this fact must be noted on the work program until the study is closed out. That is, there must be a reconciliation between the funds spent and the required deliverable or product at some point. This should not require significant additional paperwork, only a line acknowledging the status of the study until it is closed out.
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The rule provides State DOTs the authority and flexibility to manage their federally assisted State planning and research programs using their own procedures to the extent permitted under the principles and criteria contained in OMB Circular A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments. Accordingly, the FHWA certifies that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a full Federalism assessment under the Start Printed Page 47271principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this action contains collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA. These information collections are currently approved by the OMB, and there are no burden revisions to them as a result of this action.
The information collection requirements referenced in § 420.105(b) are assigned OMB control numbers 2125-0028 (expiration date, February 28, 2003) and 2125-0032 (expiration date, March 31, 2003).
The FHWA is responsible for transportation planning and research, development and technology (RDT) work performed by State DOTs with funds provided under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 505 or other 23 U.S.C. funds, as identified in the definition of FHWA planning and research funds in 23 CFR 420.103, used for such purposes at a State DOT's option. Therefore, the information collection requirements in §§ 420.111, 420.117, and 420.209 for State DOT planning and RDT activities are assigned an FHWA OMB control number 2125-0039 (expiration date, April 30, 2004). Although 23 CFR part 420 also includes administrative requirements and procedures for funds provided for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to carry out the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134, the metropolitan planning process is a jointly funded and administered FHWA/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirement. The information collection requirements in §§ 420.111 and 420.117, for work performed by the MPOs is assigned an FTA OMB control number 2132-0529 (expiration date, March 31, 2004).
The information collection requirements referenced in § 420.209 are assigned OMB control number 2125-0039 (expiration date, April 30, 2004).
Issued on: July 12, 2002.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA revises
PART 420—PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Subpart A—Administration of FHWA Planning and Research Funds
How does the FHWA define the terms used in this part?
What is the FHWA's policy on use of FHWA planning and research funds?
420.107
What is the minimum required expenditure of State planning and research funds for research development and technology transfer?
What are the requirements for distribution of metropolitan planning funds?
What are the documentation requirements for use of FHWA planning and research funds?
420.115
What are the FHWA approval and authorization requirements?
What are the program monitoring and reporting requirements?
420.119
What are the fiscal requirements?
What other requirements apply to the administration of FHWA planning and research funds?
How does the FHWA define the terms used in this subpart?
420.205
What is FHWA's for policy research, development, and technology transfer funding?
What are the requirements for research, development, and technology transfer work programs?
420.209
Start Part Start Printed Page 47272
§ 420.101
This part prescribes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policies and procedures for the administration of activities undertaken by State departments of transportation (State DOTs) and their subrecipients, including metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), with FHWA planning and research funds. Subpart A identifies the administrative requirements that apply to use of FHWA planning and research funds both for planning and for research, development, and technology transfer (RDT) activities. Subpart B describes the policies and procedures that relate to the approval and authorization of RDT work programs. The requirements in this part supplement those in 49 CFR part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments and 49 CFR part 19, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations.
§ 420.103
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) means the cooperative RDT program directed toward solving problems of national or regional significance identified by State DOTs and the FHWA, and administered by the Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences.
§ 420.105
(1) Maximum possible flexibility in the use of FHWA planning and research funds to meet highway and local public transportation planning and RDT needs at the national, State, and local levels while ensuring legal use of such funds and avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts; and
(2) To determine which eligible planning and RDT activities they desire to support with FHWA planning and research funds and at what funding level.
(c) The policy in paragraph (a) of this section does not remove the FHWA's responsibility and authority to determine which activities are eligible for funding. Activities proposed to be funded with FHWA planning and research funds by the State DOTs and their subrecipients shall be documented and submitted for FHWA approval and authorization as prescribed in §§ 420.111 and 420.113. (The Start Printed Page 47273information collection requirements in paragraph (b) of § 420.105 have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control numbers 2125-0028 and 2125-0032.)
§ 420.107
(a) A State DOT must expend no less than 25 percent of its annual SPR funds on RDT activities relating to highway, public transportation, and intermodal transportation systems in accordance with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 505(b), unless a State DOT certifies, and the FHWA accepts the State DOT's certification, that total expenditures by the State DOT during the fiscal year for transportation planning under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 will exceed 75 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal year.
(2) The planning activities have a higher priority than RDT activities in the overall needs of the State DOT for a given fiscal year; and
(3) The total level of effort by the State DOT in RDT (using both Federal and State funds) is adequate.
(1) Whether the State DOT has a process for identifying RDT needs and for implementing a viable RDT program.
(2) Whether the State DOT is contributing to cooperative RDT programs or activities, such as the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, and transportation pooled fund studies.
(4) Whether the State DOT can demonstrate that it will meet the requirement or substantially increase its RDT expenditures over a multi-year period, if an exception is granted for the fiscal year.
§ 420.109
§ 420.111
(a) Proposed use of FHWA planning and research funds must be documented by the State DOTs and subrecipients in a work program, or other document that describes the work to be accomplished, that is acceptable to the FHWA Division Administrator. Statewide, metropolitan, other transportation planning activities, and transportation RDT activities may be documented in separate programs, paired in various combinations, or brought together as a single work program. The expenditure of PL funds for transportation planning outside of metropolitan planning areas under § 420.109(d) may be included in the work program for statewide transportation planning activities or in a separate work program submitted by the State DOT.
(2) Additional information on metropolitan planning area work programs is contained in 23 CFR part 450. Additional information on RDT work program content and format is contained in subpart B of this part.
(c) In areas not designated as TMAs, a simplified statement of work that describes who will perform the work and the work that will be accomplished using Federal funds may be used in lieu of a work program. If a simplified statement of work is used, it may be submitted separately or as part of the Statewide planning work program. Start Printed Page 47274
(d) The State DOTs that use separate Federal-aid projects in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section must submit an overall summary that identifies the amounts and sources of FHWA planning and research funds available, matching funds, and the amounts budgeted for each activity (e.g., statewide planning, RDT, each metropolitan area, contributions to NCHRP and transportation pooled fund studies, etc.).
(e) The State DOTs and MPOs also are encouraged to include cost estimates for transportation planning, research, development, and technology transfer related activities funded with other Federal or State and/or local funds; particularly for producing the FHWA-required data specified in paragraph (b) of § 420.105, for planning for other transportation modes, and for air quality planning activities in areas designated as non-attainment for transportation-related pollutants in their work programs. The MPOs in TMAs must include such information in their work programs. (The information collection requirements in §§ 420.111 have been approved by the OMB and assigned control numbers 2125-0039 for States and 2132-0529 for MPOs.)
§ 420.113
§ 420.115
(c) A project agreement must be executed by the State DOT and the FHWA Division Office for each statewide transportation planning, metropolitan planning area, or RDT work program, individual activity or study, or any combination administered as a single Federal-aid project. The project agreement may be executed concurrent with or after authorization has been given by the FHWA Division Administrator to proceed with the work in whole or in part. In the event that the project agreement is executed for only part of the work, the project agreement must be amended when authorization is given to proceed with additional work.
(The information collection requirements in § 420.115(c) have been approved by the OMB and assigned control numbers 2125-0529.)
§ 420.117
(2) Additional information on reporting requirements for individual RDT studies is contained in subpart B of this part.
(e) Suitable reports that document the results of activities performed with FHWA planning and research funds must be prepared by the State DOT or subrecipient and submitted for approval by the FHWA Division Administrator prior to publication. The FHWA Division Administrator may waive this requirement for prior approval. The FHWA's approval of reports constitutes acceptance of such reports as evidence of work performed but does not imply endorsement of a report's findings or recommendations. Reports prepared for FHWA-funded work must include appropriate credit references and disclaimer statements. (The information Start Printed Page 47275collection requirements in § 420.117 have been approved by the OMB and assigned control numbers 2125-0039 for States and 2132-0529 for MPOs.)
§ 420.119
(3) The work performed by the third party is an eligible transportation planning or RDT related activity that benefits the federally funded work;
(4) The third party costs (i.e., salaries, fringe benefits, etc.) are allowable under the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost principles (i.e., OMB Circular A-21, A-87, or A-122);[1]
(d) In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 505(c) or 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3), the requirement for matching SPR or PL funds may be waived if the FHWA determines the interests of the Federal-aid highway program would be best served. Waiver of the matching requirement is intended to encourage State DOTs and/or MPOs to pool SPR and/or PL funds to address national or regional high priority planning or RDT problems that would benefit multiple States and/or MPOs. Requests for waiver of matching requirements must be submitted to the FHWA headquarters office for approval by the Associate Administrator for Planning and Environment (for planning activities) or the Associate Administrator for Research, Development, and Technology (for RDT activities). The matching requirement may not be waived for NHS, STP, or MG funds.
(e) NHS, STP, or MG funds used for eligible planning and RDT purposes must be identified separately from SPR or PL funds in the work program(s) and must be administered and accounted for separately for fiscal purposes. In accordance with the statewide and metropolitan planning process requirements for fiscally constrained transportation improvement program (TIPs) planning or RDT activities funded with NHS, STP, or MG funds must be included in the Statewide and/or metropolitan TIP(s) unless the State DOT and MPO (for a metropolitan area) agree that they may be excluded from the TIP.
§ 420.121
(a) Audits. Audits of the State DOTs and their subrecipients shall be performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.[2] Audits of for-profit contractors are to be performed in accordance with State DOT or subrecipient contract administration procedures.
(c) Disadvantaged business enterprises. The State DOTs must administer the transportation planning and RDT program(s) consistent with their overall efforts to implement section 1001(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178) and 49 CFR part 26 regarding disadvantaged business enterprises.
(h) Nondiscrimination. The nondiscrimination provisions of 23 CFR parts 200 and 230 and 49 CFR part 21, with respect to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, apply to all programs and activities of recipients, subrecipients, and contractors receiving FHWA planning and research funds Start Printed Page 47276whether or not those programs or activities are federally funded.
(i) Patents. The State DOTs and their subrecipients are subject to the provisions of 37 CFR part 401 governing patents and inventions and must include or cite the standard patent rights clause at 37 CFR 401.14, except for § 401.14(g), in all subgrants or contracts. In addition, State DOTs and their subrecipients must include the following clause, suitably modified to identify the parties, in all subgrants or contracts, regardless of tier, for experimental, developmental or research work: “The subgrantee or contractor will retain all rights provided for the State in this clause, and the State will not, as part of the consideration for awarding the subgrant or contract, obtain rights in the subgrantee's or contractor's subject inventions.”
§ 420.201
The purpose of this subpart is to prescribe requirements for research, development, and technology transfer (RDT) activities, programs, and studies undertaken by State DOTs and their subrecipients with FHWA planning and research funds.
§ 420.203
Unless otherwise specified in this part, the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and subpart A of this part, are applicable to this subpart. As used in this subpart:
Applied research means the study of phenomena to gain knowledge or understanding necessary for determining the means by which a recognized need may be met; the primary purpose of this kind of research is to answer a question or solve a problem.
Basic research means the study of phenomena, and of observable facts, without specific applications towards processes or products in mind; the primary purpose of this kind of research is to increase knowledge.
Development means the systematic use of the knowledge or understanding gained from research, directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems or methods, including design and development of prototypes and processes.
Final report means a report documenting a completed RDT study or activity.
Intermodal RDT means research, development, and technology transfer activities involving more than one mode of transportation, including transfer facilities between modes.
Peer exchange means a periodic review of a State DOT's RDT program, or portion thereof, by representatives of other State DOT's, for the purpose of exchange of information or best practices. The State DOT may also invite the participation of the FHWA, and other Federal, State, regional or local transportation agencies, the Transportation Research Board, academic institutions, foundations or private firms that support transportation research, development or technology transfer activities.
RDT activity means a basic or applied research project or study, development or technology transfer activity.
Research means a systematic study directed toward fuller scientific knowledge or understanding of the subject studied. Research can be basic or applied.
Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) means the database produced and maintained by the Transportation Research Board and available online through the National Transportation Library. TRIS includes bibliographic records and abstracts of on-going and completed RDT activities. TRIS Online also includes links to the full text of public-domain documents.
§ 420.205
What is the FHWA's policy for research, development, and technology transfer funding?
(a) It is the FHWA's policy to administer the RDT program activities Start Printed Page 47277utilizing FHWA planning and research funds consistent with the policy specified in § 420.105 and the following general principles in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
(c) The State DOTs are encouraged to develop, establish, and implement an RDT program, funded with Federal and State DOT resources that anticipates and addresses transportation concerns before they become critical problems. Further, the State DOTs are encouraged to include in this program development and technology transfer programs to share the results of their own research efforts and promote the use of new technology.
(d) To promote effective use of available resources, the State DOTs are encouraged to cooperate with other State DOTs, the FHWA, and other appropriate agencies to achieve RDT objectives established at the national level and to develop a technology transfer program to promote and use those results. This includes contributing to cooperative RDT programs such as the NCHRP, the TRB, and transportation pooled fund studies as a means of addressing national and regional issues and as a means of leveraging funds.
(e) The State DOTs will be allowed the authority and flexibility to manage and direct their RDT activities as presented in their work programs, and to initiate RDT activities supported by FHWA planning and research funds, subject to the limitation of Federal funds and to compliance with program conditions set forth in subpart A of this part and § 420.207.
(f) The State DOTs will have primary responsibility for managing RDT activities supported with FHWA planning and research funds carried out by other State agencies and organizations and for ensuring that such funds are expended for purposes consistent with this subpart.
(g) Each State DOT must develop, establish, and implement a management process that ensures effective use of available FHWA planning and research funds for RDT activities on a statewide basis. Each State DOT is permitted to tailor its management process to meet State or local needs; however, the process must comply with the minimum requirements and conditions of this subpart.
(h) The State DOTs are encouraged to make effective use of the FHWA Division, Resource Center, and Headquarters office expertise in developing and carrying out their RDT activities. Participation of the FHWA on advisory panels and in program exchange meetings is encouraged.
§ 420.207
(a) The State DOT's RDT work program must, as a minimum, consist of a description of RDT activities to be accomplished during the program period, estimated costs for each eligible activity, and a description of any cooperative activities including the State DOT's participation in any transportation pooled fund studies and the NCHRP. The State DOT's work program should include a list of the major items with a cost estimate for each item. The work program should also include any study funded under a previous work program until a final report has been completed for the study.
(b) The State DOT's RDT work program must include financial summaries showing the funding levels and share (Federal, State, and other sources) for RDT activities for the program year. State DOTs are encouraged to include any activity funded 100 percent with State or other funds for information purposes.
(c) Approval and authorization procedures in § 420.115 are applicable to the State DOT's RDT work program.
§ 420.209
(a) As a condition for approval of FHWA planning and research funds for RDT activities, a State DOT must develop, establish, and implement a management process that identifies and results in implementation of RDT activities expected to address high priority transportation issues. The management process must include:
(1) An interactive process for identification and prioritization of RDT activities for inclusion in an RDT work program;
(2) Use of all FHWA planning and research funds set aside for RDT activities, either internally or for participation in transportation pooled fund studies or other cooperative RDT programs, to the maximum extent possible;
(3) Procedures for tracking program activities, schedules, accomplishments, and fiscal commitments;
(4) Support and use of the TRIS database for program development, reporting of active RDT activities, and input of the final report information;
(5) Procedures to determine the effectiveness of the State DOT's management process in implementing the RDT program, to determine the utilization of the State DOT's RDT outputs, and to facilitate peer exchanges of its RDT Program on a periodic basis;
(6) Procedures for documenting RDT activities through the preparation of final reports. As a minimum, the documentation must include the data collected, analyses performed, conclusions, and recommendations. The State DOT must actively implement appropriate research findings and should document benefits; and
(7) Participation in peer exchanges of its RDT management process and of other State DOTs' programs on a periodic basis. To assist peer exchange teams in conducting an effective exchange, the State DOT must provide to them the information and documentation required to be collected and maintained under this subpart. Travel and other costs associated with the State DOT's peer exchange may be identified as a line item in the State DOT's work program and will be eligible for 100 percent Federal funding. The peer exchange team must prepare a written report of the exchange.
(b) Documentation that describes the State DOT's management process and the procedures for selecting and implementing RDT activities must be developed by the State DOT and submitted to the FHWA Division office for approval. Significant changes in the management process also must be submitted by the State DOT to the FHWA for approval. The State DOT must make the documentation available, as necessary, to facilitate peer exchanges.
(c) The State DOT must include a certification that it is in full compliance with the requirements of this subpart in each RDT work program. If the State DOT is unable to certify full compliance, the FHWA Division Administrator may grant conditional approval of the State DOT's work program. A conditional approval must cite those areas of the State DOT's management process that are deficient and require that the deficiencies be corrected within 6 months of conditional approval. The certification must consist of a statement signed by the Administrator, or an official designated by the Administrator, of the State DOT certifying as follows: “I (name of certifying official), (position title), of the State (Commonwealth) of ____, do hereby certify that the State (Commonwealth) is in compliance with all requirements of 23 U.S.C. 505 and its implementing regulations with respect to the research, development, and technology transfer program, and contemplate no changes in statutes, regulations, or administrative Start Printed Page 47278procedures which would affect such compliance.”
(d) The FHWA Division Administrator shall periodically review the State DOT's management process to determine if the State is in compliance with the requirements of this subpart. If the Division Administrator determines that a State DOT is not complying with the requirements of this subpart, or is not performing in accordance with its RDT management process, the FHWA Division Administrator shall issue a written notice of proposed determination of noncompliance to the State DOT. The notice will set forth the reasons for the proposed determination and inform the State DOT that it may reply in writing within 30 calendar days from the date of the notice. The State DOT's reply should address the deficiencies cited in the notice and provide documentation as necessary. If the State DOT and the Division Administrator cannot resolve the differences set forth in the determination of nonconformity, the State DOT may appeal to the Federal Highway Administrator whose action shall constitute the final decision of the FHWA. An adverse decision shall result in immediate withdrawal of approval of FHWA planning and research funds for the State DOT's RDT activities until the State DOT is in full compliance.
(The information collection requirements in § 420.209 have been approved by the OMB and assigned control number 2125-0039.)
1. OMB Circulars are available on the Internet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/​omb/​circulars/​index.html.
[FR Doc. 02-18007 Filed 7-17-02; 8:45 am]