[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42077-42082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17404]
[[Page 42077]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket FTA-2011-0055]
Environmental Justice: Final Circular
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final circular.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has placed in the
docket and on its Web site final guidance in the form of a Circular
(hereinafter ``EJ Circular'') on incorporating environmental justice
principles into plans, projects, and activities that receive funding
from FTA. This final guidance provides recommendations to State
Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
public transportation providers, and other recipients of FTA funds on
how to fully engage environmental justice populations in the public
transportation decision-making process; how to determine whether
environmental justice populations would be subjected to
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects as a result of a transportation plan, project, or activity; and
how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these effects.
DATES: The effective date of the Circular is August 15, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program questions, Amber
Ontiveros, Office of Civil Rights, Federal Transit Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Room E54-422, Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202)
366-4018, fax: (202) 366-3809, or email, Amber.Ontiveros@dot.gov; or
for legal questions, Cecelia Comito, Office of Chief Counsel, 200 West
Adams Street, Suite 320, Chicago, IL 60606, phone: (312)353-2789, or
email, Cecelia.Comito@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Circular
This notice provides a summary of the final changes to the EJ
Circular and responds to comments. The final Circular itself is not
included in this notice; instead, an electronic version may be found on
FTA's Web site, at www.fta.dot.gov, and in the docket, at
www.regulations.gov. Paper copies of the final Circular may be obtained
by contacting FTA's Administrative Services Help Desk, at (202) 366-
4865.
Table of Contents
I. Overview
II. Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis
A. General Comments
B. Comments Beyond the Scope of the Circular
C. Chapter I--Environmental Justice, Title VI and Public
Transportation
D. Chapter II--Conducting an Environmental Justice Analysis
E. Chapter III--Achieving Meaningful Public Engagement With
Environmental Justice Populations
F. Chapter IV--Integrating Principles of Environmental Justice
in Transportation Planning and Service Delivery
G. Chapter V--Incorporating Environmental Justice Principles
Into the NEPA Process
I. Overview
Prior to the issuance of Environmental Justice Circular 4703.1,
``Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit
Administration Recipients,'' FTA guidance on incorporating principles
of environmental justice into transportation decision-making processes
consisted of a page in FTA Circular 4702.1A, ``Title VI and Title VI-
Dependent Guidelines for FTA Recipients.'' Recipients of FTA funds
often were confused about the relationship between Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and environmental justice (EJ).
With the new EJ Circular, FTA is providing additional guidance on
environmental justice and is clarifying the relationship between
environmental justice and Title VI. The EJ Circular provides guidance
on the implementation of Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,'' (February 11, 1994) and U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2(a), ``Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (May 10, 2012).
On May 10, 2012, DOT issued Order 5610.2(a), updating and
reaffirming DOT's policy to consider environmental justice principles
in all DOT programs, policies, and activities. The May 2012 Order,
updating DOT's original 1997 EJ Order, describes how the objectives of
environmental justice will be integrated into transportation planning
and programming, rulemaking, and policy formulation. The DOT Order sets
forth steps to prevent disproportionately high and adverse effects on
the environment and human health of minority and/or low-income
populations through environmental justice analyses conducted as part of
Federal transportation planning and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) provisions. It also describes the specific measures to be taken
to address instances of disproportionately high and adverse effects and
sets forth relevant definitions.
FTA's EJ Circular builds on the DOT Order, and provides further
guidance for recipients for promoting principles of environmental
justice in their public transportation decision-making processes,
programs, plans and activities. FTA conducted extensive outreach to
develop the final Circular. FTA sponsored Information Sessions in five
cities around the country regarding the proposed new EJ Circular as
well as proposed revisions to the Title VI Circular (see docket FTA-
2011-0054 for more information on the proposed Title VI Circular). The
meetings provided a forum for FTA staff to make presentations about the
two proposed Circulars and allowed attendees an opportunity to ask
clarifying questions. In addition, FTA participated in various
conferences occurring in October and November 2011, hosted several
webinars, and participated in a U.S. DOT webinar related to
environmental justice. FTA received written comments to the docket
related to the proposed EJ Circular from approximately 57 providers of
public transportation, State Departments of Transportation, advocacy
groups, individuals, metropolitan planning organizations, and the
American Public Transportation Association. Some comments were
submitted on behalf of multiple entities.
FTA's new EJ Circular is intended to provide recipients with a
distinct framework to assist them as they integrate principles of
environmental justice into their public transportation decision-making
processes, from planning through project development and
implementation.
FTA expects the additional clarification provided by both the new
EJ Circular and the final Title VI Circular, to be published later this
summer, will provide recipients the guidance they need to properly
incorporate both Title VI and EJ into their public transportation
decision-making. This notice provides a summary of the EJ Circular and
addresses comments received in response to the September 29, 2011,
Federal Register notice (76 FR 60590).
II. Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis
A. General Comments
This section addresses comments that were not directed at specific
chapters, but to the Circular as a whole.
Some commenters expressed concerns about perceived administrative
and financial burdens of the new Circular, stating that the Circular
contained new
[[Page 42078]]
requirements. These commenters also suggested that FTA exempt smaller
transit agencies or rural transit agencies from the Circular. One
commenter suggested that the new Circular contained additional
``requirements'' because the Title VI Circular only addressed
environmental justice as it related to construction projects, whereas
the new EJ Circular states that recipients are to consider EJ
principles as part of all of their transportation decision-making. This
last comment illustrates one of the reasons FTA decided to provide
expanded guidance on environmental justice. By identifying only one
example for consideration of environmental justice (i.e., construction
projects) in the Title VI Circular, recipients incorrectly inferred
that consideration of EJ principles is limited to only construction
projects. It is not. As set forth in Executive Order 12898 and DOT
Order 5610.2(a), EJ principles should be considered in all DOT
programs, policies and activities.
Thus, the EJ Circular does not contain any new responsibilities for
recipients. Recipients' responsibilities regarding environmental
justice have been a part of FTA's annual Master Agreement, which is
incorporated by reference and made a part of every grant agreement and
cooperative agreement, for many years. Section 12.j. of FTA's October
1, 2011, Master Agreement requires recipients to promote environmental
justice by following and facilitating FTA's compliance with Executive
Order 12898, and following DOT's Order on environmental justice. The EJ
Circular does not place any additional burdens on recipients; rather it
provides additional guidance to assist recipients in promoting
environmental justice.
Several comments addressed whether FTA should issue a separate EJ
Circular. Most commenters expressed approval in providing separate
Circulars on Title VI and environmental justice. However, a few
commenters did not approve of separating the Circulars, noting that it
would be less confusing if Title VI and EJ guidance continued to be in
one combined Circular. FTA believes that providing separate Circulars
on Title VI and environmental justice will help eliminate the existing
confusion between Title VI and environmental justice and provide
greater clarity to recipients and the public. Moreover, expanding the
Title VI Circular to include the information now in the EJ Circular
would make the Title VI Circular unwieldy.
Numerous commenters made suggestions on the structure of the
proposed Circular. Although several commenters liked the plain language
style used in the EJ Circular, others suggested that the Circular
should be revised to reflect the outline organizational structure used
in the Title VI and other FTA Circulars and should contain separate
chapters based on the type of recipient (i.e., transit agencies,
metropolitan planning organizations, etc.). Other commenters suggested
reorganizing the order of the chapters in the EJ Circular by placing
Chapters IV and V, which address when to do an EJ analysis, before
Chapters II and III, which address how to do an EJ analysis.
Additionally, several commenters suggested moving the information in
proposed Chapter VI, which discusses the differences and similarities
between Title VI and EJ, to Chapter I. Several commenters asked that
FTA provide more examples and explanation of the topics covered in the
Circular.
FTA considered all of these suggestions and incorporated several of
them into the final EJ Circular. FTA took a hard look at the Circular's
readability to ensure that it would be understandable to recipients,
transportation planners, and the general public. Where appropriate,
headings or graphic illustrations have been added. FTA reviewed all of
the definitions and terms used in the Circular to ensure that they are
consistent with Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2(a), and other
federal guidance. Additionally, FTA verified that the definitions used
in the EJ Circular are the same as those in the revised Title VI
Circular. FTA, however, declined to incorporate concepts that are
applicable only to Title VI into the EJ Circular.
The suggestion to restructure the chapters informed our decision to
combine Chapters I and VI. FTA declined to use the outline format used
in other FTA Circulars because such a format would not contribute to
issues of readability and accessibility of the Circular by the general
public and non-transit professionals. FTA also did not revise the
Circular to set out specific guidance based on the type of recipient
because such distinctions are not as relevant when considering EJ
principles in transportation decision-making.
Several commenters wanted clarification on whether FTA would review
EJ activities of recipients and the extent of the State departments of
transportation's responsibility for subrecipients. Other commenters
wanted FTA to incorporate strong accountability measures into the
Circular, including requirements for documentation, reporting EJ
activities alongside or within Title VI programs, monitoring
compliance, public challenges of EJ analyses, and an EJ complaint
process. Others questioned whether FTA has sufficient resources for
review and enforcement of the EJ Circular.
FTA currently reviews EJ analyses prepared as part of the NEPA
process. Additionally, FTA monitors recipients' efforts to promote EJ
through its oversight reviews, including triennial reviews, planning
certification reviews, and state management reviews. FTA expects
recipients to maintain documentation of EJ analyses undertaken as part
of their transportation planning and decision-making processes for
FTA's review during its normal monitoring activities described above.
FTA declined to provide an enforcement mechanism for environmental
justice similar to that provided in the Title VI Circular. Section 6-
609 of the Executive Order explicitly states that the E.O. ``is
intended only to improve the internal management of the executive
branch'' and that it ``shall not be construed to create any right to
judicial review involving the compliance or non-compliance of the
United States, its agencies, its officers or any other person with this
order.'' Through the Master Agreement recipients are required to
promote environmental justice and follow the Executive Order and DOT
Order. FTA will monitor recipients' efforts to address EJ concerns
through its normal oversight activities and NEPA reviews.
Several commenters asked for clarification on the use of the word
``should,'' and indicated they were concerned ``should'' would become
``shall'' over time. FTA has reviewed the final Circular and made
revisions as appropriate, limiting use of the word ``should.''
Commenters also urged FTA to coordinate its EJ guidance with other
Federal agencies, particularly with FHWA. FTA continues to work with
FHWA and DOT to ensure consistency with promoting environmental
justice, including our collaborative efforts with the Federal
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and our joint
efforts with FHWA on planning certification reviews. Additionally, all
DOT modal administrations are subject to DOT Order 5610.2(a).
Multiple commenters asked questions about whether the EJ Circular
requires a separate analysis on service and fare equity from that
required under Title VI. One commenter suggested requiring one analysis
or report for assessing service and fare changes on EJ populations,
rather than separate ones for Title VI
[[Page 42079]]
and EJ. Another commenter suggested centralizing the service and fare
change discussion in the Title VI Circular only. Some commenters
suggested allowing recipients' flexibility in determining what type of
service changes would require EJ analysis. Several comments suggested
that, where a provider builds a project for another provider, FTA
should require a service and fare equity analysis to determine the
impact on minority populations of both systems. FTA considered these
comments and decided that issues related to service and fare equity
analyses should be consolidated in a single location in the final Title
VI Circular. Consolidating FTA's guidance on service and fare equity
analyses in the Title VI Circular will provide clarity to recipients
and prevent duplication of efforts.
Several commenters asked for more clarification and examples. In
particular, a commenter wanted FTA to clarify that EJ applies at the
earliest stages of decision-making, while another wanted clarification
as to whether the Circular is outcome- or process-based. Throughout the
EJ Circular, FTA states that principles of environmental justice are to
be considered throughout the transportation planning and project
development processes. Addressing environmental justice is primarily a
process-based activity, involving public outreach to EJ populations and
evaluating whether there are disproportionate adverse effects on EJ
populations. However, outcomes are also important. In the event
disproportionate adverse effects on an EJ population, recipients must
evaluate whether there are practicable alternatives to the action prior
to taking the action.
B. Comments Beyond the Scope of the Circular
There were numerous comments that were outside the scope of the
Circular, including comments on highway improvement projects, joint
development policies, skeletal service, persons with disabilities, and
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Several commenters also made
comments on affordable housing, fair housing, and community
development, which were unrelated to the EJ Circular. FTA is not
responding to these comments because they are beyond the scope of the
notice for the EJ Circular.
C. Chapter I--Environmental Justice, Title VI, and Public
Transportation
Chapter I of the final Circular is an introductory chapter. It
provides a brief background of the Executive Order and DOT Order on EJ,
describes the purpose of the Circular, and presents the guiding EJ
principles, derived from the DOT Order on environmental justice, that
informs the rest of the Circular.
Several commenters suggested the discussion in Chapter VI of the
Circular about the similarities and differences between Title VI and EJ
be moved into Chapter I. FTA agreed with that suggestion, and revised
chapter I to include the information from Chapter VI. At the core of
this discussion was a table that compared Title VI and EJ. Several
commenters also provided suggestions on the table, suggesting the table
be enhanced and expanded, and also to discuss the scope, requirements,
and applicability of Title VI and EJ. FTA has implemented many of those
suggestions where appropriate, keeping in mind FTA has a separate Title
VI Circular and did not want to repeat everything in the EJ Circular
that is in the Title VI Circular.
Several of the comments on Chapter I asked for clarification,
specifically as to what it means to consider EJ principles; how EJ
principles are addressed in different chapters; and how
disproportionately high and adverse effects apply to majority minority
areas. FTA has expanded the discussions of these topics in Chapter I
and throughout the Circular. FTA also has clarified the Circular so
that the discussions of the applicability of the EJ analytical
framework are consistent throughout the Circular.
One commenter applauded Chapter I, stating it offered a needed
clarification on the important role of the EJ community throughout the
planning and development process to ensure EJ concerns are meaningfully
addressed.
Another commenter suggested clarifying language to reflect
potential or estimated effects. FTA believes the references to
potential effects, in the ``Guiding EJ Principles'' and ``Conducting an
EJ Analysis'' sections, effectively convey that potential effects are
to be considered.
One commenter suggested adding a section on avoiding, minimizing,
or mitigating adverse effects. FTA has revised chapters II and V to
include more discussion about mitigation.
D. Chapter II--Conducting an Environmental Justice Analysis
This chapter is designed to provide an analytical framework for
incorporating principles of environmental justice when considering
transportation plans, programs, projects, and activities. In response
to comments, this chapter has been reworked to provide more detailed
guidance on conducting an EJ analysis.
FTA received many comments on Chapter II, including multiple
positive comments and suggestions for improving this chapter to provide
more clarity. Additionally, many commenters raised questions about the
terms used in the chapter, prompting FTA to take a hard look at the
chapter to determine whether it provided sufficient information for
recipients to undertake an EJ analysis. Based on this review, FTA
decided that the chapter needed to be reorganized and that certain
sections needed to be expanded.
FTA proposed adopting the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ)
guidance on determining whether a minority population is present. Under
this guidance, CEQ suggests that a minority population may be present
if the minority population percentage of the affected area is
``meaningfully greater'' than the minority population percentage in the
general population or other ``appropriate unit of geographic
analysis.'' The term ``affected area'' is an area in which the proposed
project or activity will or may have an effect. CEQ suggests minority
populations will always be ``meaningfully greater'' when the percentage
of minorities exceeds 50 percent, regardless of what the percentage of
minority populations is in the comparison geographic unit. FTA had
suggested using this threshold for both minority populations and low-
income populations. Commenters were concerned that the ``50 percent
threshold'' was a minimum requirement, and that MPOs and others were
not free to establish lower thresholds, if appropriate. Others
suggested that ``meaningfully greater'' should be defined consistent
with how ``minority routes'' are defined in the Title VI Circular and
FTA should use the ``average percentage of the minority population in
the service area'' standard outlined in the Title VI Circular. Other
commenters liked the proposed threshold. Some commenters were concerned
that the standard ``meaningfully greater'' would be difficult to apply
in practice.
Based on the comments FTA received on this topic, we have decided
not to adopt this threshold test, finding that the threshold was too
confusing for recipients and resulted in further blurring of Title VI
and EJ. FTA has removed any reference to adopting the CEQ threshold. In
its place is a discussion of the importance of considering whether
there are disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ
populations; these effects are the basis for addressing environmental
justice concerns, not the size of the EJ populations. A very small
[[Page 42080]]
minority or low-income population in the project, study, or planning
area does not eliminate the possibility of a disproportionately high
and adverse effect on these populations. Some commenters wrongly
suggested that if minority or low-income populations are small
(``statistically insignificant''), this means there is no environmental
justice consideration. While the minority or low-income population in
an area may be small, this does not eliminate the possibility of a
disproportionately high and adverse effect of a proposed action. Thus,
FTA has concluded that recipients should make EJ determinations based
on effects, not on population size.
Commenters also asked questions about how to undertake an EJ
analysis when the majority of the population in the affected area is
minority or low-income. The fact that the majority of the population is
minority or low-income does not relieve recipients from analyzing
whether the proposed action may result in disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects. Under DOT Order
5610.2(a), whether an adverse effect is ``disproportionately high'' on
minority and low-income populations depends on whether that effect is
(1) predominantly borne by an EJ population, or (2) will be suffered by
the EJ population and is appreciably more severe or greater in
magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-EJ
population.
FTA received a number of comments on the ``Preparing a Residential
Demographic Profile'' section. We have taken these comments into
consideration in the revised ``Know Your Community'' section, which
incorporates the ``Preparing a Residential Demographic Profile''
section. One commenter stated that the inclusion of specific
requirements to conduct equity analyses and analyze demographic data
will help to lift out some of the ``hidden'' impacts of transit
projects, such as cumulative impacts of a series of transit service
cuts or fare increases. Multiple commenters expressed that American
Community Survey (ACS) data is unreliable, that Census data should be
more readily accessible, and that recipients should be allowed to use
reliable existing data or complement Census data with local surveys. We
have included ACS data as a source of demographic data because it is a
useful tool that is, along with the Census, readily available. The ACS
and Census are not the exclusive sources of demographic data, and local
data can be used to refine ACS and Census data. Any demographic data
used by recipients must be from a reliable source. Multiple commenters
also wanted more guidance and flexibility regarding area of study and
data sets, including information that goes beyond where EJ populations
reside to where they work and receive benefits.
One commenter suggested using the Census Bureau poverty threshold
in place of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
threshold for the definition of low-income. The definition in the
proposed Circular is the same as that in the DOT EJ Order, and for
Departmental consistency, we have retained that definition. However,
recipients may use a more inclusive definition of low-income, e.g.,
150% of poverty level, or incomes at a certain percentage of median
household income, etc., if they choose, provided the threshold is at
least as inclusive as the HHS poverty guidelines. FTA did revise the
Circular text in response to comments suggesting changes regarding the
use of Census block level and block group level data, NEPA references,
and TIGER/Line file availability.
FTA received several comments regarding the Benefits and Burdens
Analysis section. Commenters asked for clarification regarding the
timing of an analysis, the types of projects or activities that require
an analysis, whether a separate analysis would be required for
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) and long-range plans, and
whether special or promotional fares are subject to an analysis before
implementation. Multiple commenters suggested FTA specify that an EJ
analysis be done after alternatives are identified and before a
preferred alternative is selected. Another commenter suggested that
this type of analysis should apply only to specific transportation
improvement projects, and not to Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) plans, which should be recognized as reflective of the time when
the plan is developed. Another commenter suggested FTA clarify that
benefits and burdens analysis must assess the burden of lack of
service, while another suggested that metrics should be tailored to a
specific impact, on which EJ populations would then provide input.
Many of the above comments reflect a misunderstanding of what it
means to promote the principles of environmental justice in public
transportation plans, programs, activities and projects. EJ is not a
one-time analysis conducted at a specific moment in time, never to be
revisited again. Throughout the transportation planning process and
project implementation, there are opportunities for recipients to
engage the public, including members of EJ communities. FTA has
attempted to clarify this analysis with the section ``Determining
Whether Adverse Effect Is Disproportionately High.'' FTA has included
more discussion and updated graphics on potential impacts and when an
EJ analysis may be appropriate. Fare equity analyses are addressed in
FTA's Title VI Circular, and not in the EJ Circular. An EJ analysis
should be included in environmental reviews under NEPA, and impacts on
EJ populations should be analyzed and addressed as part of the
environmental impact statement (EIS), environmental assessment (EA) or
categorical exclusion (CE).
E. Chapter III--Achieving Meaningful Public Engagement With
Environmental Justice Populations
Chapter III contains recommended strategies and techniques for
ensuring that EJ populations have a voice in the decision-making
process. In response to comments, this chapter has been revised to
provide more clarity on our recommendations to make the public
engagement process more inclusive and user-friendly, including the
separation of the section on ``Hosting a Successful Public Meeting.''
This chapter also describes non-traditional outreach strategies that
may result in greater participation by EJ populations.
FTA received numerous comments on chapter III, with positive
comments on the emphasis on public participation throughout the
transportation planning process, including the parts on community
advisory committees and public engagement teams, and the traditional
and non-traditional outreach techniques. Multiple commenters made
suggestions on public engagement and outreach. One commenter suggested
using the term ``public engagement'' or ``participation,'' rather than
the weaker term ``public involvement.'' In response to this comment,
FTA has replaced references to ``public involvement'' with ``public
engagement'' or ``participation.''
Several commenters asked for expanded guidance, particularly on how
to consider the needs of EJ populations, how to do so at the earliest
stages of planning, and how to incorporate those needs in recipients'
plans. These issues related to considering EJ population needs and
planning are addressed in chapter IV, particularly in the ``Strategies
for Public Engagement for Planning Activities'' and ``Strategies to
Achieve Full Public Participation for Planning Activities'' sections,
as well as in the FTA/FHWA joint planning regulations (23 CFR part
450). Another
[[Page 42081]]
commenter asked for clarification on the timing of outreach; i.e.,
whether outreach was to take place during the planning process or at
the earliest stages of planning. Outreach should be done early in the
planning process and continue throughout the transportation decision-
making process, and this is reflected in the ``Public Engagement as
Part of Transportation Planning'' section.
FTA has clarified guidance on public engagement and has stated that
public engagement is integral to good transportation planning. Some
commenters suggested the need to balance public input and provider
capacity and resources, which includes the acceptance of local outreach
practices. FTA has clarified the language in the chapter that
engagement strategies will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
and FTA encourages local outreach practices that will effectively reach
community members.
Additional outreach techniques that commenters suggested include
advertising public meetings via multilingual door-to-door campaigns,
working with community groups to develop public engagement plans,
emphasizing the use of alternatively formatted materials for people
with disabilities, and translated documents to reach limited-English
proficient (LEP) persons, placing notices on vehicles and electronic
displays, conducting onboard rider interviews, hosting meet and greet
forums at terminals, avoiding blast public engagement techniques that
may upset riders, and holding events and workshops at shopping centers,
adult schools, or restaurants in areas where EJ populations live, work,
and relax. FTA welcomes these suggestions and encourages recipients to
evaluate the use of different techniques for public engagement in their
communities. As noted in the Circular, there is no one technique for
effective engagement of EJ populations; rather each situation will
drive the outreach techniques used. Some commenters suggested that FTA
create a clearinghouse of information for EJ populations to access
region-specific data, require data collection from populations that do
not regularly use a recipient's services, supplement data collection
with feedback from EJ communities on the quality of service, and
require transit providers to engage housing and social service
providers to identify transportation challenges and mitigation
strategies. FTA is exploring the possibility of such a clearinghouse,
but declines to require this data collection and dissemination at this
time.
Several comments were made on the ``Getting to Know Your
Community'' section. A few commenters stated that maps of disaggregated
minority populations have limited use in determining outreach targets,
while another commenter cautioned on relying too heavily on non-profit
organizations to conduct outreach to the public. Disaggregated minority
population maps may be more useful than aggregated minority population
maps, as they will provide more specific information on EJ populations.
At the very least, minority populations should be disaggregated from
low-income populations. While outreach through non-profit organizations
is important, they are one of several listed examples of non-
traditional outreach, along with informal group meetings, digital
media, direct mail, and community led events. Another commenter stated
that FTA should require collection of demographic information to ensure
public meeting attendees are from the local EJ population, should not
allow recipients to delegate or contract out public engagement, and
should require public meeting notices posted in obvious locations three
weeks prior to the meeting. Specific requirements for providing notice
of public meetings are set forth in federal, state and local
regulations, and must be followed. FTA does not intend to alter any of
those regulations with this Circular. The intent of Chapter III is to
provide suggestions for additional methods for engaging EJ populations.
F. Chapter IV--Integrating Principles of Environmental Justice in
Transportation Planning and Service Delivery
This chapter includes guidance on incorporating EJ principles into
Statewide, metropolitan and local planning processes. Many of the
strategies described in this chapter apply not only to the required
Statewide and metropolitan planning processes, but also to planning
activities undertaken by transit providers and other local entities
with public transportation planning and service-delivery
responsibilities. This chapter builds on the residential demographic
profile described in Chapter II and describes specific planning tools
for developing these profiles. The chapter briefly outlines the
Statewide and metropolitan planning public engagement requirements in
the joint FHWA/FTA planning regulations, and proposes strategies to
achieve public participation in planning activities. Each plan, whether
Statewide, metropolitan, or local, should encompass the goals and
visions for future transportation for a region or area. This chapter
explains why it is important to develop those goals and visions with
input from EJ populations.
This chapter provides some sample questions to guide the discussion
with the public to inform planning officials on how well current
operation, management, and maintenance of facilities and services serve
the needs of communities, with particular attention to the parity
between EJ and non-EJ populations. In response to comments, references
to service and fare equity have been moved to the Title VI Circular.
This chapter recommends that public transportation providers and
planning officials maintain a regular and open dialogue with EJ
populations regarding the effectiveness of the plan, and identify
trends in public transportation for future plans.
Commenters expressed interest in FTA providing more EJ guidance for
MPOs and planning activities. One commenter pointed out that part of
this chapter seemed repetitive of other chapters, while another
suggested the creation of additional regulations and requirements that
are sensitive to performance-based planning. Multiple commenters
suggested linking the requirement to consider the needs of EJ
populations with planning certification reviews, while several other
commenters suggested flexibility as to when environmental justice
should be considered for long term assessments. FTA revised the
Circular to incorporate these suggestions.
G. Chapter V--Incorporating Environmental Justice Principles Into the
NEPA Process
This chapter provides recipients with a road map for incorporating
EJ analysis into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
Federal agencies are required to consider the effects of Federally-
funded projects on the environment. Recipients should include an EJ
analysis, where applicable, as part of their NEPA documentation.
This chapter describes how a recipient can incorporate EJ
principles into its analysis of the environmental impacts of a proposed
project by defining the project impact area, identifying alternatives,
identifying adverse environmental effects, identifying project
benefits, and identifying mitigation measures and enhancements.
Finally, this chapter provides guidance related to projects that
qualify as categorical exclusions and information related to NEPA-
specific public engagement strategies.
Several commenters spoke positively of Chapter V. Some commenters
made
[[Page 42082]]
recommendations, including incorporating CEQ's definition of cumulative
impacts into guidance; allowing stronger state-level analyses to
suffice; and removing the chapter altogether. Multiple commenters
wanted more discussion and clarification on categorical exclusions,
including when further evaluation for an exclusion or exemption needs
to be conducted. Commenters also wanted to clarify that projects are
not always evaluated through the NEPA process. FTA acknowledges that
Chapter V does not serve as guidance on the NEPA process, but rather
assumes the reader has a level of familiarity with NEPA and its
requirements. Therefore, FTA declines to incorporate into Chapter V
discussions of general NEPA concepts such as cumulative impacts under
CEQ. However, FTA has revised Chapter V to provide additional
clarification of the relationship between NEPA and EJ.
Issued in Washington, DC, this July 12, 2012.
Peter M. Rogoff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-17404 Filed 7-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P