[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33922-33958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13021]
[[Page 33921]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Parts 450 and 1410
49 CFR Parts 613 and 621
Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation
Planning; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 33922]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 450 and 1410
Federal Transit Administration
23 CFR Part 1410
49 CFR Parts 613 and 621
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-5933]
FHWA RIN 2125-AE62; FTA RIN 2132-AA66
Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation
Planning
AGENCIES: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA and the FTA are jointly issuing this document which
proposes revisions to the regulations governing the development of
transportation plans and programs for urbanized (metropolitan) areas
and statewide transportation plans and programs. These revisions are a
product of statutory changes made by the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21) enacted on June 9, 1998, and generally would
revise existing regulatory language to make it consistent with current
statutory requirements. In addition, the proposed regulatory language
addresses the implementation of Presidential Executive Order 12898
regarding Environmental Justice. These changes are being proposed in
concert with revisions to regulations regarding environmental impact
and related procedures which are published separately in today's
Federal Register. The two rules are linked in terms of their working
relationship and the FHWA and the FTA are soliciting comments on each
rule individually, as well as their intended functional and operational
interrelationships.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 2000. For
dates of public information meetings see ``Supplementary Information.''
ADDRESSES: All signed, written comments must refer to the docket number
appearing at the top of this document and must be submitted to the
Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments received will be available for
examination at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring
notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard. For addresses of public information
meetings see ``Supplementary Information.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the FHWA: Mr. Sheldon M. Edner,
Metropolitan Planning and Policies Team (HEPM), (202) 366-4066
(metropolitan planning), Mr. Dee Spann, Statewide Planning Team (HEPS),
(202) 366-4086 (statewide planning), or Mr. Reid Alsop, Office of the
Chief Counsel (HCC-31), (202) 366-1371. For the FTA: Mr. Charles
Goodman, Metropolitan Planning Division (TPL-12) (metropolitan
planning), (202) 366-1944, Mr. Paul Verchinski, Statewide Planning
Division (TPL-11)(statewide planning), (202) 366-6385, or Mr. Scott
Biehl, Office of the Chief Counsel (TCC-30), (202) 366-0952. Both
agencies are located at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Office hours for the FHWA are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., and
for the FTA are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
http://dms.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 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 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/nara.
Public Information Meetings
We will hold a series of seven public briefings within the comment
period for the NPRM. The purpose of these briefings is to explain the
content of the NPRM and encourage public input to the final rulemaking.
The meetings will address this NPRM, the companion NPRM on the
environmental (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA))
process, and the NPRM on Intelligent Transportation Systems
Architecture consistency. The meetings will be scheduled from
approximately 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the locations listed below. Further
information and any changes in addresses, dates and other logistical
information will be made available after the publication of this NPRM
through the FHWA and the FTA websites, and through other public
announcement avenues and the newsletters and websites of major
stakeholder groups. Individuals wishing information, but without access
to these sources, may contact the individuals listed in the above
caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
The structure of the meetings will emphasize brief presentations by
the DOT staff regarding the content of the NPRM. A period for
clarifying questions will be provided. Under current statutory and
regulatory provisions, the DOT staff will not be permitted to engage in
a substantive dialog regarding what the content of the NPRMs and the
final regulations should be. Attendees wishing to express ideas and
thoughts regarding the final content of the rules should direct those
comments to the docket. Briefing sites will include: Boston, MA,
Auditorium, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway,
June 9, 2000; Atlanta, GA, Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree
Street, June 20, 2000; Washington, D.C., Marriott Metro Center, 775
12th Street, NW, June 23, 2000; Chicago, IL, Holiday Inn Mart Plaza,
350 North Orleans Street, June 27, 2000; Denver, CO, Marriott City
Center, 1701 California Street, June 30 , 2000; Dallas, TX, Hyatt
Regency Hotel Dallas, 300 Reunion Boulevard, July 11, 2000; and, San
Francisco, CA, Radisson Miyako, 1625 Post Street, July 19, 2000.
As part of the outreach process planned for these proposed rules,
the FHWA/FTA will be conducting a national teleconference on June 15,
2000 from 1-4 p.m. eastern time, through the auspices of the Center for
Transportation and the Environment at North Carolina State University.
The teleconference will be accessible through numerous downlink
locations nationwide and further information can be obtained from Ms.
Katie McDermott at [email protected]. The purpose of the
teleconference is to describe the proposed new statewide and
metropolitan planning, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, implementation, and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) rules.
An overview of each of the three notices of proposed rulemaking
(NPRMs) will be presented and the audience (remote and local) will have
opportunities to ask questions and seek clarification of FHWA/FTA
proposals. By sponsoring this teleconference it is hoped that interest
in the NPRMs is
[[Page 33923]]
generated, that stakeholders will be well informed about FHWA/FTA
proposals, and that interested parties will participate in the
rulemaking process by submitting written suggestions, comments and
concerns to the docket.
Background
Sections 1203, 1204, and 1308 of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178,
112 Stat. 107, amended 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, which require a
continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated transportation planning
process in metropolitan areas and States. Similar changes were made by
sections 3004, 3005, and 3006 of the TEA-21 to 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306
which address the metropolitan planning process in the context of the
FTA's responsibilities. We are proposing revisions to our current
metropolitan and statewide planning regulations and are inviting
comments on the proposed revisions.
General Information Concerning Development of Regulation
Approach to Structure of Proposed Regulation
Revisions to the current regulation at 23 CFR part 450 are being
proposed to reflect the impacts of the TEA-21. We have adopted an
approach to the proposed revisions that will rely heavily on guidance
and good practice. The proposed regulatory language attempts to respond
to legislative mandates and changes with minimal amplification where
feasible. In some cases, other factors, e.g., court cases, presidential
directives, etc., have provided a stimulus for change and
amplification. In these instances, the agencies have tried to keep
regulatory language to a minimum except where clarification would
assist appropriate agencies and groups in complying.
In a separate document in today's Federal Register, we propose to
remove 23 CFR part 771 and add parts 1420 and 1430 in its stead. This
regulation implements the FTA and the FHWA processes for complying with
the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for
implementing the NEPA, Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852. Jointly
administered by the FTA and the FHWA, part 771 was last revised in
1987. The passage of the TEA-21 and its predecessor, the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Public Law 102-
240, 105 Stat. 1914, have contributed legislative impetus to a
revision. To facilitate compliance with section 1308 of the TEA-21
dealing with major investment studies and section 1309 addressing
environmental streamlining and twelve years of court rulings and
experience, we propose to revise the regulations regarding
environmental impact and related procedures in conjunction with those
for metropolitan and statewide transportation planning. In general, the
intent is to more effectively link the two regulations to facilitate
integration of decisions, reduce paperwork and analytical activity
where feasible, and to refine procedures and processes to achieve
greater efficiency of decision making. In addition, we believe that an
integrated approach to planning and project development (NEPA process
plus additional project level actions needed to prepare for project
implementation) will contribute to more effective and environmentally
sound decisions regarding investment choices and trade-offs.
In preparing this proposed rule, we have attempted to maintain or
reduce the level of data collection and analyses that is currently
required. We solicit comment on the extent to which this strategy has
been achieved. Comments suggesting that the strategy has not been
successful should identify specific requirements and/or provisions that
increase burdens and provide specific reasons for this increase. The
degree or extent of the increase should be identified also. Suggestions
to lessen burdens are welcome.
In the proposed rule, we revised the section headings to utilize
more commonplace language and for clarity. The substance of the
sections is modified in some cases as described below. The organization
of each section and overall flow of organization remains predominantly
unchanged, except as indicated in the section-by-section discussion.
In addition, we are proposing a new numbering scheme. Current part
450 would be redesignated as part 1410.
Input to Development of Proposed Regulation
As noted above, the TEA-21 was signed into law on June 9, 1998.
Subsequently, the DOT initiated a series of national meetings to
solicit input regarding possible approaches to implementing the new
legislation. The results of the principal public sessions in this
outreach effort are summarized in ``Listening to America: TEA-21
Outreach Summary, 1998.'' This document was published by the Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. It is currently
available online through the following website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/listamer.htm. Additionally, on February 10, 1999, we issued a
discussion paper (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration, TEA-21 Planning and Environmental Provisions: Options
for Discussion) to further solicit public comments regarding previously
provided suggestions. This discussion paper was designed to reflect
comments from stakeholder groups and encourage all interested parties
to provide additional detailed comments on approaches to implementing
the statutory provisions for the planning and environmental sections of
the law. The Options Paper is available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tea21imp.htm.
Overall Strategy for Regulatory Development
Our strategy for regulatory development has three principal
elements: (1) Outreach and listening to stakeholders, (2) developing
improvements that will allow the FHWA, the FTA, the States and
metropolitan areas to demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving
congressional objectives, and (3) looking internally, with our Federal
partner agencies, at how we collectively can improve coordination and
performance.
As indicated above, the FHWA and the FTA, in concert with the
Office of the Secretary and other modal administrations within the DOT,
developed and implemented an extensive public outreach process on all
elements of the TEA-21. The process began shortly after the legislation
was enacted on June 9, 1998, and various types of outreach activities
have been underway since that time. The initial six-month
departmentwide outreach process included twelve regional forums and
over 50 focus groups and workshops (63 FR 40330, July 28, 1998). The
DOT heard from over 3,000 people, including members of Congress,
Governors and Mayors, other elected officials, transportation
practitioners at all levels, community activists and environmentalists,
freight shippers and suppliers, and other interested individuals. The
input received was valuable and has helped us shape our implementation
strategy, guidance and regulations. Those comments will be placed in
this docket as informational background.
With respect to the planning and environmental provisions of the
TEA-21, we learned a great deal through the twelve regional forums and
focus group sessions and subsequently implemented a second, more
focused phase of outreach which included issuing an Options Paper for
discussion on the Planning and Environmental Streamlining Provisions of
the TEA-21. The contents of the Options Paper
[[Page 33924]]
reflected input received up to that time and built upon the existing
statewide and metropolitan planning regulations and our implementing
regulation for the NEPA. We released the Options Paper on February 10,
1999, and received comments through April 30, 1999.
More than 150 different sets of comments were received from State
Departments of Transportation (State DOTs), Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), counties, regional planning commissions, other
Federal agencies, transit agencies, bicycle advocacy groups,
engineering organizations, consultants, historical commissions,
environmental groups, and customers--the American public. These
comments were all reviewed and taken into consideration in the
development of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Another element of outreach included meetings between the FHWA and
the FTA and key stakeholder groups, other Federal agencies, and the
regional and field staff within the FHWA and the FTA. These sessions
also helped guide us in developing this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Comments on this NPRM are welcomed and will be taken into account prior
to the issuance of a final regulation on statewide and metropolitan
planning under the TEA-21.
The Options Paper comments are contained in the docket and are
summarized below. This general summary is structured around the issues
as presented in the Options Paper and seeks to provide an overall
perspective on the range of opinions submitted to the FHWA and the FTA.
Details on specific comments and input can be obtained by reviewing the
materials in the docket.
These proposed rules were developed by an interagency task force of
planners and environmental specialists of the FHWA and the FTA, with
input from other DOT modal agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), other Federal agencies and the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. DOT. The task force reviewed all input received from the outreach
process and through other sources which communicate regularly with the
DOT. In addition, comments were solicited from the field staff of the
FHWA and the FTA.
Summary of Comments Received on Options Paper
The following discussion summarizes the comments received on the
Options Paper and the response we are generally taking in structuring
this proposed rule. This summary focuses only on the comments directly
related to planning. The comments regarding environmental provisions,
generally, are treated in the preamble to the proposed revision to 23
CFR 771. Cross-cutting issues as discussed in the Options Paper appear
in both preambles, as appropriate. Since many commenters included both
planning and environmental topics in their correspondence, an exact
count of planning versus environment issues in the 150 comments
received is not easy or useful. The summary is not intended to be
complete or comprehensive. Rather, it is provided to give the public a
general sense of the issues addressed in the comments received. The
views of individual commenters can be obtained by consulting the docket
as indicated above.
Planning Factors
We were offered a number of options on how to ensure that the seven
new planning factors added by the TEA-21 are addressed in the
metropolitan and statewide planning processes. One option is to include
the TEA-21 statutory language in the planning regulation and provide
maximum flexibility to States and MPOs to tailor approaches to local
conditions. In addition, it was suggested that we amplify the basic
statutory language in this regulation by providing information to
States and MPOs, including best practices on approaches to considering
the factors, and technical assistance on planning practices which
integrate consideration of the seven factors. A third possibility was
to develop specific criteria for the consideration of each of the seven
factors, include the criteria in this regulation, and require that
State DOTs and MPOs demonstrate compliance through the planning
certification process.
The vast majority of comments received on the planning factors,
including those from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),
the National Association of County Engineers (NACE), the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
supported a twofold approach: (1) To include the TEA-21 statutory
language in the planning regulation without further regulatory
requirements, and (2) to provide technical assistance and information
on current practices to States and MPOs to aid them in consideration of
the planning factors. An additional point raised, by State DOTs and
MPOs in particular, was that guidance, if issued by the FHWA and the
FTA, should not be construed as constituting new, binding requirements
on State DOTs and MPOs.
Systems Operation and Management and Integration of Intelligent
Transportation Systems Into the Planning Process
The TEA-21 directs that operation and management of the
transportation system requires greater attention during planning.
Capital investment, especially for new capacity but also for system
preservation, has dominated traditional transportation planning
analyses and decisions. Continuing fiscal constraint, growing
sensitivity to environmental impacts of infrastructure and the need for
prudent management of infrastructure all lead to a heightened
consideration of systems management and operational strategies as part
of systems planning. The emergence of various Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) technologies as useful tools in the
operation and management of the transportation system has also
highlighted the need to focus increased attention in this area. An
additional factor in treating ITS as part of system operation and
management are the requirements of section 5206(e) of the TEA-21
regarding the consistency of federally funded ITS projects (funded with
highway trust fund dollars) with the National ITS Architecture.
Many individual State DOTs, MPOs, and their national associations
(AMPO and AASHTO) expressed the view that the planning factor requiring
consideration of strategies to promote efficient system management and
operation is sufficient to direct States and MPOs to consider
operations and management issues as an integral part of their planning
efforts. They indicated that the seven factors are all important and
that to highlight consideration of any one factor above all others is
inappropriate. Further, they felt that treating operations and
management issues with any additional emphasis would be duplicative and
is not necessary.
Only one commenter, the Maricopa Association of Governments,
explicitly addressed the ITS matter. This agency suggested that we
implement a requirement for federally funded ITS projects to be in
accord with a regional ITS plan that is developed through a cooperative
process.
Cooperative Development of Revenue Forecasts
The TEA-21 retained the basic requirement for financially
constrained metropolitan plans and statewide and metropolitan
transportation improvement programs (STIPs/TIPs).
[[Page 33925]]
The TEA-21 clarifies the requirement for cooperative development by
States, MPOs, and transit agencies of estimated future levels of
funding from local, State, or Federal sources that may reasonably be
expected to be available to metropolitan areas.
In general, many State DOTs and the AASHTO seek the greatest
flexibility while MPOs and local governments seek provisions which
would ensure that they get a ``fair share'' of Federal funding. The
NACE, the AMPO, the National Association of Counties (NACO), and the
Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) observe that a formal
process should be required based upon consensus of the State, MPO, and
transit agencies (where applicable) and that the process should be
documented and implemented with an adequate phase-in period provided.
The national associations and many of their constituent members
commented that the process which has evolved over the past several
years is inadequate for MPO and local agency needs, and that the
Congress intended that this be rectified through the TEA-21 clarifying
language. Both the NACE and the AMPO support the development of formal
procedures, including decision rules for allocating funds and the
development of internal and external dispute resolution and appeals
processes to ensure that revenue forecasting is a truly collaborative
process. The NACE also suggests that the FHWA and the FTA serve as
``honest brokers'' between State transportation agencies and MPOs when
there is disagreement on revenue forecasts and allocation.
Illustrative Projects
Organizations and agencies, including the Indian Nation Council of
Governments, the Public Policy Institute of California, the AMPO, and
the EPA raised concerns about the need for coordination between States
and MPOs in cases where illustrative projects are proposed to be added
to metropolitan area plans or TIPs. Specifically, it was suggested that
in metropolitan areas, MPOs should have explicit approval authority for
the inclusion of such projects in transportation plans and TIPs and for
the implementation of illustrative projects.
On the whole, respondents supported a position that illustrative
projects are important to them, but that such projects should not be
included in the transportation plan or TIP conformity analysis until
formally amended into the Plan/TIP. In addition, there was considerable
support for an approach which requires MPO concurrence on projects that
are proposed to be advanced to an MPO plan and/or TIP. The Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the Colorado DOT
expressed concern that illustrative projects would be allowed to
circumvent the planning process. State DOTs, in particular, advocated
allowing illustrative projects to be included in the conformity
analyses for plans and TIPs in order that it may be demonstrated that
they will not jeopardize the conformity of plans and TIPs.
The AASHTO and several State DOTs felt that we are being too
restrictive in our definition of a financially constrained plan. In
short, these commenters request more flexibility. Some State DOTs,
including the Texas, New Jersey, Missouri, and Virginia DOTs point out
that they feel it entirely appropriate to conduct NEPA related project
development activities and studies on such projects, outside of the
fiscal constraint requirements. They endorse amending such projects
into the plan and TIP when appropriate, and at that time trigger fiscal
constraint and conformity requirements.
Annual Listing of Projects
During the outreach process, the Missouri DOT, and the Denver
Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) remarked that MPOs do not have
the authority to obligate Federal funds and that States and transit
agencies are the authorized recipients of Federal funds. Therefore,
they suggest, the States, transit agencies, and/or the Federal
government need to provide the necessary information to the MPOs in
order that they may comply with the TEA-21 requirement for an annual
listing of projects.
The AMPO recommended that we establish and maintain a project
monitoring system for the purpose of tracking Federal highway and
transit obligations and that we make this system accessible to the MPOs
in order that it might provide the basis for the annual listing of
projects. These stakeholders are concerned that there be clear
direction to the implementing agencies (States and transit agencies)
for meeting this TEA-21 requirement. Further, they are concerned that
MPOs, without the assistance of implementing agencies, do not have the
necessary information to comply with this requirement. The American
Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) felt the annual
list should include all obligated funds, rather than just projects with
Federal funding.
The U.S. EPA believes a nationally uniform format for these lists
should be developed and that such lists should be sent to State and
Federal environmental agencies, the interagency consultation groups
under the transportation conformity regulation, and others.
The Transportation Equity Network and the Center for Community
Change advocate the preparation of this list on a zip-code basis and
cited a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) model.
They suggest a zip-code based list is easily understandable by members
of the public.
Many of those who commented supported an approach which would
provide easy public access to information, through a wide means of
communication, as noted above. Many stakeholders, including the AMPO
and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, opposed a process which would
require the development of such a list through the public involvement
process of the MPO. However, the American Planning Association, the
Surface Transportation Policy Project, the Urban Habitat Program, the
Tri-State Transportation Campaign, and the National Association to
Defend NEPA, among others, supported the dissemination of the list,
once developed, through easily accessed public distribution channels.
Coordination With Local Elected Officials in Non-Metropolitan Areas
The NACO, the National Association of Development Organizations,
the STPP, the York County Planning Commission (Pennsylvania), the
Minnesota DOT, and the Georgia DOT all suggested that where regional
planning organizations or councils of government exist, they be
considered as an entity that States could work with to facilitate the
engagement of elected officials. The NACE, U.S. House of Representative
Bob Ney and others supported a two-phased approach: the FHWA and the
FTA would provide the flexibility to States and local elected officials
to develop a process, and then be provided ample time to document and
formalize the process pursuant to the TEA-21. These commenters felt
that the flexibility to tailor approaches is needed, but that
documentation of the agreed upon approach is also needed to ensure it
is implemented on a continuing basis.
The National Association of Towns and Townships suggested more
formal processes, like those that are in place in some States, where
local governments form development districts or regional development
commissions, modeled to some extent after the MPO process. The Land-of-
the-Sky Regional Council indicated that this approach is necessary to
ensure rural officials have
[[Page 33926]]
a voice in decision making and that rural area needs are addressed. In
addition, they suggest that such an approach ensures the coordination
of a broad array of objectives relating to economic development, land
use, and transportation. State DOTs in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Wyoming, New York, Virginia and Oklahoma suggested that
existing local official consultation arrangements are adequate and that
compliance with the TEA-21 provision merely requires documentation of
existing arrangements.
20-Year Forecast Period in Transportation Plans
Commenters, including AASHTO, ITE, Virginia DOT, Texas DOT,
Washington DOT, and Kansas DOT supported a clarification which
reiterates that transportation plans must be for a 20-year minimum
forecast period at the time of plan adoption. Further, the Capital
District Transportation Authority, the Regional Transit Agency in
Denver, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Agency, the Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Lackawanna County
Regional Planning Commission and others felt that so long as
metropolitan TIP updates and amendments (required every two years) are
consistent with the metropolitan plan, then, a metropolitan plan update
with a new 20-year forecast period should not be required. The STIP
amendments and updates (also required every two years) would be
governed by the State plan and its unique update schedule.
Transportation Conformity Related Issues
There are several issues related to the EPA conformity regulation
in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 that could be addressed in the revised
planning regulations. These issues relate to clarifying requirements
and definitions, and could lead to better integration of transportation
and air quality planning, a principal objective of the EPA's
regulation. These include:
1. Consistency between metropolitan plan update cycle and the point
at which a conformity determination is required.
During the outreach process, and in many of the comments to the
Options Paper, stakeholders indicated that they interpret the three-
year clock for a plan (and required conformity analysis) as starting
from the date the MPO approves the metropolitan plan. Agencies,
including the Utah DOT, the New York DOT, and others commented that
this provides certainty about the exact time frame in which the plan
needs to be updated and that this is the preferred approach to
clarifying this issue.
In nonattainment and maintenance areas, however, this approach is
complicated by required MPO and Federal conformity findings. The
AASHTO, and the Virginia DOT supported making the effective date of the
plan the date of the Federal conformity finding. The AMPO indicated
that it has no certainty as to when the FHWA and the FTA will approve a
conformity determination on a metropolitan plan and thus, tying the
effective date of the plan to an approval over which they feel they
have no control does not, in its view, facilitate the planning process.
2. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in State Implementation
Plans (SIPs).
Stakeholders, including the Bicycle Federation of America, the
AASHTO, and the AMPO, observed that TCMs, for which Federal funding or
approvals are required, must meet the TEA-21 planning requirements
(i.e., come from a conforming and financially constrained
transportation plan and TIP) and that attempting to circumvent this
process, in order to place these measures in SIPs, undermines the
transportation planning process.
3. Definitions: TIP Amendments, Conformity Lapse, TIP Extensions.
The FHWA and the FTA have considered clarifying ambiguous terms
used in the ISTEA and the EPA's conformity regulation 40 CFR parts 51
and 93. The New Jersey DOT, the AMPO, the Utah DOT, the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission, the Wisconsin DOT, and the DRCOG
have endorsed the concept of clarification of definitions and terms and
want an opportunity to comment on proposed definitions.
Cross Cutting Issues
There are a number of options for implementing the cross-cutting
planning and environmental provisions of the TEA-21. Both regulatory
and non-regulatory approaches were suggested to us. The concepts
discussed in the proposed rule have been coordinated with other
administrations within the DOT and with other Federal agencies.
A. Public Involvement
Some State and local agencies have expressed interest in ways to
integrate the public involvement process related to plan and TIP
development with public involvement process related to the project
development. Several stakeholder groups have noted the difficulties in
getting public input on long-range plans and TIPs and the tendency for
the public to be more inclined to participate in project-specific
opportunities for input. They indicated that this tends to frustrate
the public involvement efforts of State and MPO planners to obtain
input on long-range transportation plans. During the public outreach
process, we sought input in this area, as well as examples of
successful techniques and approaches to engage the public on both
project-level proposals and long-range plans and TIPs.
Comments from stakeholders were varied. However, there were a
substantial number of comments that preferred the following two-fold
approach: retaining the public involvement approach included in the
planning regulation and modifying the NEPA regulation public
involvement requirements to make our procedures the same (based on the
FHWA, rather than the FTA, approach). This, they suggest, would allow
States and MPOs to design processes that work best given local
conditions and needs, yet would simplify the NEPA public involvement
process by consolidating the FHWA and the FTA processes into one.
In arguments supporting this option, a considerable number of
commenters, including State DOTs in Montana, Washington, New Jersey,
Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the AASHTO, pointed out
distinctions between the type of public involvement that must occur in
the planning process and that which is sought in the NEPA process. They
point out that these two processes, tailored according to each need,
can serve two different purposes and can work without conflict.
There were a number of comments on whether freight interests and
representatives of transit users should be represented with voting
membership on MPO boards. These commenters, including the NACE, all
opposed this idea and observed that putting persons representing
particular interests on voting boards with elected officials would
dilute the representation of duly elected officials. Yet, the Bicycle
Federation of America supported putting representatives of bicyclists
and pedestrians on voting boards of MPOs to ensure that they have an
opportunity to comment on transportation plans and programs. The Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Orange County
Transportation Authority, the Arkansas DOT, and the Minnesota DOT
supported a consistent approach to public involvement for both planning
activities and the NEPA project
[[Page 33927]]
development activities and suggested basing this approach on the
current FHWA NEPA regulation (23 CFR part 771). The EPA suggested that
the DOT needs to assist community leaders, MPOs, and the public in
establishing performance goals and local accountability for public
participation.
B. Environmental Justice and Equity
There were a considerable number of commenters, including the
AASHTO and many State DOTs, that opposed any suggestion that equity in
the distribution of resources should be a factor used to assess whether
environmental justice issues are being adequately addressed. These
comments ranged from claims that such language, if included in
regulation, would contradict the hard-fought TEA-21 provisions on the
allocation of transportation funds to claims that such language would
result in preempting States and MPOs from selecting the transportation
projects and programs in their respective jurisdictions. Deep concern
about this option and opposition to this approach was widespread and
shared by MPOs and transit agencies who feel that geographic sub-
allocation of funding based on demographics is short-sighted, and an
inappropriate way to ensure the principles of environmental justice are
honored.
Many commenters indicated that they believe the Executive Order
12898, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 78
Stat. 241, as amended, and current NEPA requirements are sufficient to
ensure that environmental justice concerns are addressed. The New
Jersey DOT noted that benefits that accrue to users of investments
should be a consideration in planning, and that this could possibly be
measured in terms of mobility.
The Fulton County and Georgia Department of Environment and
Community Development focused on the composition of appointed officials
on regional authorities. This agency suggested that such authorities or
decision making bodies should reflect the demographics of the region.
This agency also suggested that all elements of the population affected
by a particular decision should be sought out for their input. In
addition, this commenter suggested that controversial project decisions
should be analyzed to ensure that they conform to the Environmental
Justice Presidential Executive Order. Finally, the commenter suggested
that all decisions should be analyzed to ensure that no particular
geographic sub-area is being over-burdened with adverse conditions
resulting from transportation investments.
The U.S. Forest Service pointed out that lumping environmental
justice and equity together is, in its view, a mistake. It suggested
that the best option for public involvement, especially on issues
concerning environmental justice, would be those procedures that
incorporate collaboration processes early and often in the process.
One agency made the case that we should consider requiring
environmental justice analyses of plans, programs and processes, and of
major projects. The commenting agency suggested that we could adopt a
set of requirements for recipients of our funding. Requirements would
include: (1) Community group or nonprofit organization inclusion as
equal and full partners in proposed projects; (2) applications for
funding include community input in project development; and (3)
external reviewers would make project selection decisions.
C. Elimination of Major Investment Study as Separate Requirement
Section 1308 of the TEA-21 eliminates the major investment study
(MIS), described in 23 CFR 450.318, as a separate requirement and calls
for integration of the MIS, as appropriate, into the planning and NEPA
analyses required under 23 CFR parts 450 and 771. Proponents supporting
this legislative action cited instances where major investment studies
were said to duplicate NEPA requirements, were time consuming and
costly, and importantly, that results were not usefully integrated into
the project development activities under NEPA.
The Options Paper articulated four general concepts (distilled from
earlier stakeholder comments) focusing on strengthening the linkage
between systems planning and project development. We thought this would
facilitate broader consideration of transportation system development
although, in some cases, commenters had other views as discussed below.
In all of the options, the intent was to faithfully implement the
TEA-21 provision that exempts plans and programs from consideration
under NEPA. The MPOs would not be required to conduct NEPA analyses on
plans. However, they could more effectively utilize the analyses
conducted during planning activities to facilitate compliance with NEPA
requirements at a project level. If an MPO, as part of its planning
process, chose to conduct a NEPA analysis on a plan, it would be a
permissible, voluntary decision. In addition to the four options
presented for input, the Options Paper included a number of questions
to solicit a better understanding of stakeholders' needs and concerns.
There were a wide range of comments on the elimination of the MIS
and on the options presented. The AASHTO felt that we should restrict
regulatory language and allow States and MPOs to integrate the
principles of the MIS, as appropriate, into planning and programming
activities at their discretion. The AMPO suggested that we should allow
States the flexibility to do the NEPA analysis in the planning process,
as an option, but not as a requirement. In fact, many stakeholders were
firmly opposed to any regulatory language integrating NEPA requirements
into the planning process.
Most of the commenters supported better linkages between planning
and project development and many commenters, including the Minnesota
DOT, supported the development of purpose and need during planning
studies and sub-regional analysis, but only with the proviso that
resource agencies and others allow the use of this information in the
NEPA process. On the other hand, the Virginia DOT, for example, was
opposed to developing project purpose and need during planning if there
is a lack of participation of resource agencies and other parties to
the NEPA process who could then require that analysis be redone or
revisited during the formal NEPA process. There was near unanimous
support for streamlining through reducing duplicative requirements and
practices, such as, revisiting issues during project development that
were, in commenters views, fully explored during planning.
Many commenters supported options that offer the most flexibility
to States and MPOs. The Florida DOT suggested blending the two most
flexible options and developing regulatory language that ensures the
principles of MIS not already addressed by other Federal regulations
and statutes are included in the metropolitan planning and programming
requirements. They also suggested that the planning regulation should
include requirements for proactive agency coordination and public
involvement, collaborative and multi-modal planning analysis of
alternatives, and financial capacity analysis of alternatives. The
Florida DOT also felt that the States should take the lead on these
processes.
The City of Irvine, Texas, suggested that the MIS process served as
a good check on the system planning process and was a good way to build
consensus and gain public input. Its traffic and
[[Page 33928]]
transportation director suggested that expanding the purpose and need
statement would help narrow down alternatives prior to the NEPA
process. The same individual also suggested looking at the entire
process to identify what environmental information could be both
practical and useful at each level of analysis.
Additionally, and echoing earlier comments, stakeholders felt that
the key to success in whatever approach is taken or required in
regulation, is that Federal agencies participate early in the process
and that they stay involved throughout the development of, and
elimination of, alternatives. Consistent with this suggestion, the EPA
commented that the only way they would give standing to previously
conducted planning analyses during the NEPA project development stage
is if there had been full opportunity for consultation in the
metropolitan planning process, and if the resource agencies had
``confidence that those plans were developed with environmentally
desirable alternatives being considered.''
D. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
The Options Paper presented two scenarios which would help promote
the consideration and evaluation of the cumulative and indirect effects
of projects at a regional or large sub-regional scale, rather than on a
project-by-project basis. In metropolitan areas, the former MIS
requirement provided an opportunity for appropriate consideration of
such effects across a sub-regional area where major, multiple
transportation actions might be needed. With the elimination of the
separate MIS requirement, the most logical venue for the consideration
of such effects may be in the systems planning processes that support
the development of metropolitan or statewide transportation plans.
One approach to implementing cumulative and secondary impact
consideration would require an appropriate evaluation of these effects
in a regional or sub-regional analysis, thus obviating the need for
repetitious, project-by-project review. Such an approach might also
provide an opportunity for more effective and efficient mitigation of
cumulative impacts and the enhancement of adversely affected resources.
Another possibility is to rely on a systems planning analysis of
cumulative and indirect effects. In the absence of a robust planning-
level review of these impacts, the project-by-project review as part of
each NEPA evaluation would be required.
Some commenters, including the AASHTO and the Bicycle Federation of
America, interpreted the first option as a requirement for enhancement
projects whenever there are cumulative or indirect effects identified.
A large number of commenters opposed this approach, but for two
different reasons. The Bicycle Federation of America felt that using
transportation enhancement funding to counterbalance the adverse
impacts of projects is unacceptable and that such mitigation should be
part of the project cost and implementation from the outset. Others,
including State DOTs in Utah, New York, and Virginia, believed that a
regional or subregional analysis is unrealistic, excessively costly,
and of no value unless the study results were accepted by State and
Federal environment and resource agencies.
The Oregon DOT observed that the appropriate level to consider
cumulative and indirect impacts is at a regional or sub-regional
planning level, but not as an analysis per se; rather, as a plan to
preserve and enhance habitat and preserve resources for future
generations. A few examples of plans that accomplish this objective
were provided. The New Jersey DOT, Texas DOT, and the American Road and
Transportation Builders Association stated that the ``science'' for
evaluating the impacts is not available and that we should provide
funding, education, and tools to assist MPOs and States to develop the
appropriate analysis tools.
Finally, the Lubbock and Byron College Station MPOs (both from
Texas) indicated that cumulative and indirect impacts are, and should
be, adequately addressed in consideration of the planning factors and
that additional regulatory requirements are unnecessary and redundant.
Distribution Table
For ease of reference, a distribution table is provided for the
current sections and the proposed sections as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old section New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
450.100............................ 1410.100.
450.102............................ 1410.102.
450.104............................ 1410.104.
Definitions.................... Definitions.
None....................... Conformity lapse.
None....................... Conformity rule.
Management System.......... Congestion management system
[Revised].
Consultation............... Consultation [Revised].
Cooperation................ Cooperation [Revised].
Coordination............... Coordination [Revised].
None....................... Design concept.
None....................... Design scope.
None....................... Federally funded non-emergency
transportation services.
None....................... Financial estimate.
None....................... Freight shipper.
None....................... Illustrative project.
None....................... Indian tribal government.
None....................... Interim Plan.
None....................... Interim Transportation
Improvement Program.
None....................... ITS integration strategy.
Maintenance area........... Maintenance area [Revised].
None....................... Management and operation.
Metropolitan planning area. Metropolitan planning area.
Metropolitan planning Metropolitan planning
organization. organization.
Metropolitan transportation Metropolitan transportation
plan. plan.
Nonattainment area......... Nonattainment area.
None....................... Non-metropolitan local
official.
None....................... Plan update.
[[Page 33929]]
None....................... Provider of freight
transportation services.
None....................... Purpose and need.
Regionally significant Regionally significant project
project. [Revised].
State...................... State.
State implementation plan.. State implementation plan.
Statewide transportation Statewide transportation
improvement program (STIP). improvement program (STIP).
None....................... Statewide transportation
improvement program (STIP)
extension.
Statewide transportation Statewide transportation plan.
plan.
None....................... TIP update.
None....................... Transportation control
measures.
Transportation improvement Transportation improvement
program. program [Revised].
Transportation management Transportation management area.
area.
Transportation plan update. Transportation plan update.
None....................... Twenty year planning horizon.
None....................... Urbanized area.
None....................... User of public transit.
450.200............................ 1410.200.
450.202............................ 1410.202.
450.204............................ 1410.204.
450.206(a)(1)...................... Removed.
450.206(a)(2) through (a)(5)....... 1410.206(a)(1) through (a)(4).
None............................... 1410.206(a)(5)[Added].
450.206(b)......................... Removed
450.208(a)......................... 1410.208(a) [Revised].
450.208(b)......................... 1410.208(b) [Revised].
450.210(a)......................... 1410.210(a) [Revised].
450.210(b)......................... 1410.210(e) [Revised].
450.212(a) through (f)............. 1410.212(b) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.212(c) [Added].
450.212(g)......................... 1410.212(e).
450.214............................ 1410.214 [Revised].
450.216(a) introductory paragraph.. 1410.216(a).
450.216(a)(1) through (a)(7)....... 1410.216(c)(1) through (c)(7).
None............................... 1410.216(c)(8).
450.216(a)(8)...................... 1410.216(c)(9).
450.216(a)(9)...................... 1410.216(c)(10).
None............................... 1410.216(b) [Added].
450.216(b)......................... 1410.216(d).
450.216(c)......................... 1410.216(e) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.216(f) [Added].
450.216(d)......................... 1410.216(g) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.218 [Added].
450.218............................ 1410.220 [Revised].
450.220(a) introductory paragraph.. 1410.222(a) introductory paragraph.
450.220(a)(1)...................... 1410.222(a)(1) [Revised].
450.220(a)(2)...................... 1410.222(a)(2) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.222(a)(3) through (a)(6)
[Added].
450.220(a)(3)...................... Removed.
450.220(a)(4)...................... 1410.222(a)(7).
450.220(a)(5)...................... 1410.222(a)(8).
450.220(a)(6)...................... 1410.222(a)(9).
None............................... 1410(a)(10) [Added].
450.220(b) and (c)................. 1410.222(b) [Revised].
450.220(d)......................... 1410.222(c) [Revised].
450.220(e)......................... 1410.222(b)(3) [Revised].
450.220(f)......................... 1410.222(d).
450.220(g)......................... 1410.222(e).
450.222(a) through (d)............. 1410.224(a) through (d) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.224(e) [Added].
450.224............................ Removed.
None............................... 1410.226 [Added].
450.300............................ 1410.300 [Revised].
450.302............................ 1410.302 [Revised].
450.304............................ 1410.304 [Revised].
450.306(a)......................... 1410.306(a) [Revised].
450.306(b) and (c)................. 1410.306(b) and (c) [Revised].
450.306(d) and (g)................. 1410.306(f) [Revised].
450.306(e)......................... 1410.306(d).
450.306(f)......................... 1410.306(e).
450.306(h) through (k)............. 1410.306(g) through (j) [Revised].
450.308(a) through (d)............. 1410.308(a) through (d) [Revised].
450.308(e)......................... 1410.308(e) [Added].
450.310(a)......................... 1410.310(a) [Revised].
[[Page 33930]]
450.310(b)......................... Removed.
None............................... 1410.310(b) [Added].
450.310(c)......................... 1410.310(c) [Revised].
450.310(d)......................... 1410.310(h) [Revised].
450.310(e)......................... 1410.310(d) [Revised].
450.310(f)......................... 1410.310(e) [Revised].
450.310(g)......................... 1410.310(f).
None............................... 1410.310(g) [Added].
450.310(h)......................... 1410.310(i).
450.312(a)......................... 1410.312(a) [Revised].
450.312(b)......................... 1410.312(b).
450.312(c)......................... 1410.312(c) [Revised].
450.312(d)......................... 1410.312(d).
450.312(e) through (i)............. 1410.312(e) through (i) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.312(j) [Added].
450.314(a), (b) and (d)............ 1410.314(a), (b) and (c) [Revised].
450.314(c)......................... Removed
450.316(a)......................... 1410.316(a) [Revised].
450.316(b)(1)...................... 1410.316(b) [Revised].
450.316(b)(2)...................... 1410.316(c) [Revised].
450.316(b)(3)...................... 1410.316(d) [Revised].
450.316(b)(4)...................... 1410.316(e) [Revised].
450.316(b)(5)...................... 1410.316(f) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.316(g) [Added].
450.316(c)......................... 1410.316(h) [Revised].
450.316(d)......................... 1410.316(i).
None............................... 1410.316(j) [Added].
450.318............................ 1410.318 [Revised].
450.320(a)......................... Removed.
450.320(b), (c) and (d)............ 1410.320(a), (b) and (c) [Revised].
450.322(a)......................... 1410.322(a) [Revised].
450.322(b)(1) through (b)(7)....... 1410.322(b)(1) through (b)(7)
[Revised].
450.322(b)(8)...................... Removed.
450.322(b)(9) through (b)(11)...... 1410.322(b)(8) through (b)(10)
[Revised].
None............................... 1410.322(b)(11) [Added].
450.322(c) and (d)................. 1410.322(c) and (d) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.322(e) [Added].
450.322(e)......................... 1410.322(f).
None............................... 1410.322(g) [Added].
450.324(a) through (e)............. 1410.324(a) through (e) [Revised].
450.324(f)(1) through (f)(3)....... 1410.324(f)(1) through (f)(3)
[Revised].
None............................... 1410.324(f)(4) [Added].
450.324(f)(4) and (f)(5)........... 1410.324(f)(5) and (f)(6)
[Revised].
450.324(g) through (o)............. 1410.324(g) through (o) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.324(p) [Added].
450.326............................ 1410.326 [Revised].
450.328............................ 1410.328 [Revised].
450.330(a) and (b)................. 1410.330(a) and (b) [Revised].
None............................... 1410.330(c) [Added].
450.332(a)......................... 1410.332(b) [Revised].
450.332(b)......................... 1410.332(c) [Revised].
450.332(c)......................... 1410.332(a) [Revised].
450.332(d) and (e)................. 1410.332(d) and (e).
450.334(a)(1) through (a)(5)....... 1410.334(a)(1) through (a)(5)
[Revised].
None............................... 1410.334(a)(6) through (a)(8)
[Added].
450.334(b) through (f)............. 1410.334(b) through (f) [Revised].
450.334(g)......................... Removed.
None............................... 1410.334(g) [Added].
450.334(h)......................... 1410.334(h) [Revised].
450.336............................ Removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 1410.100 Purpose
Current Sec. 450.100 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.100 and a
technical correction would be made for a legislative citation.
Section 1410.102 Applicability
Current Sec. 450.102 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.102. The
text of this section is unchanged.
Section 1410.104 Definitions
Current Sec. 450.104 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.104. The
definition of ``conformity lapse'' and ``transportation control
measure'' would be added and would have the meaning given it in the EPA
conformity regulation provided at 40 CFR 93.101, as follows:
The term ``lapse'' means that the conformity determination for a
transportation plan or TIP has expired, and thus there is no currently
conforming transportation plan and TIP.
[[Page 33931]]
The term ``congestion management system'' would replace the
previous definition of ``management system'' and would have the meaning
given in the management system rule (23 CFR part 500).
The term ``consultation'' would have minor wording changes, but no
substantive changes.
The word ``programming'' would be dropped from the definition of
``coordination'' to reflect the fact that programming is a subset of
the planning process. The project development processes reference would
be added to reflect the provisions of proposed Sec. 1410.318.
Definitions are proposed for ``design concept,'' ``design scope,''
``federally funded non-emergency transportation services,'' ``financial
estimate,'' and ``freight shipper'' for clarification of legislative
terminology.
The term ``Governor'' remains the same.
The terms ``illustrative project'' and ``ITS integration strategy''
would be added to reflect new legislative provisions. The term ``Indian
Tribal Government'' is added for clarification.
The terms ``Interim Plan'' and ``Interim Transportation Improvement
Program'' are added to clarify the basis for advancing exempt and
existing and new TCM projects during a conformity lapse. Interim plans
and TIPs must be developed in a manner consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134.
They must be based on previous planning assumptions and goals;
appropriately adjusted for currently available projections for
population growth, economic activity and other relevant data. The
public must be involved consistent with the regular transportation plan
and program development processes. Financial planning and constraint,
and, as appropriate, congestion management systems requirements must be
satisfied, and interim TIPs must be approved by the MPO and the
Governor.''
The term ``maintenance area'' would be revised to reflect the EPA
definition used in the conformity regulation at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
A definition is proposed for ``management and operation'' to
reflect the new legislative policy direction from the TEA-21.
The terms ``metropolitan planning area,'' ``metropolitan planning
organization,'' ``metropolitan transportation plan,'' and
``nonattainment area'' would remain unchanged, except for legislative
references.
A definition of ``non-metropolitan local official'' would be added
to reflect the provisions of the TEA-21 regarding consultation between
the State and these officials.
The terms ``plan update,'' ``provider of freight services,'' and
``purpose and need'' would be added to provide clarification of
terminology.
The definition of ``regionally significant'' reflects the US EPA
conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
The terms ``State,'' ``State implementation plan,'' ``statewide
transportation plan,'' and ``statewide transportation improvement
program'' would be unchanged.
A definition for ``statewide transportation improvement program
extension'' would be added for clarification.
The term ``transportation improvement program'' would be revised
slightly. The term ``TIP update'' would be added to provide information
and direction on when a TIP must be updated . Anytime a non-exempt
project is added to a TIP, the TIP must be updated. In attainment
areas, the TIP must be updated whenever a regionally significant
project is added to the TIP.
The definition of ``transportation management area'' would be
unchanged. The terms ``twenty year planning horizon, ``urbanized
area,'' and ``user of public transit'' would be added to clarify
legislative terminology.
Subpart B--Statewide Planning and Programming
Section 1410.200 Purpose of Regulations
Current Sec. 450.200 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.200. The
statement of purpose would be amplified by reflecting the declaration
of purpose articulated in the TEA-21. This amplification also supports
greater consistency of purpose between metropolitan and statewide
planning.
Section 1410.202 Applicability of Regulation
Current Sec. 450.202 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.202. The
text would be revised to add ``project sponsors'' as agencies affected
by the provisions of this section.
Section 1410.204 Definitions
Current Sec. 450.204 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.204. This
section would remain the same.
Section 1410.206 Statewide Transportation Planning Process: Basic
Requirements
Current Sec. 450.206 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.206.
A new Sec. 1410.206(a)(5) would be added. This section articulates
the need for the State to develop and implement a process for
demonstrating the consistency of plans and programs with the provisions
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related legislation. We
believe that such processes are already in place and that the
clarification of minimum required information and analysis would
benefit States and other agencies in meeting the existing requirement
in the self-certification statement included in the STIP.
Current Sec. 450.206(b) would be eliminated since it is redundant
with Sec. 450.210(a).
Section 1410.208 Consideration of Statewide Transportation Planning
Factors
Current Sec. 450.208 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.208.
Paragraph (a) would be revised by substituting the seven planning
factors identified in the TEA-21 for those previously identified by the
ISTEA. All parenthetical amplification has been deleted and the wording
is that used by the statute. We plan to issue guidance regarding
interpretation and application of the planning factors. We welcome
suggestions on exemplary State and MPO procedures already in place or
under development, and how those might be replicated in other State or
MPO planning processes. We also recognize that it will take some time
to develop syntheses of current practices and other tools. However, we
will work with States, MPOs, and others to ensure that tools and
examples are made available in a timely manner.
We are proposing to revise paragraph (b) to focus on other
considerations that the TEA-21 states should be addressed in the
planning process. Specifically, the concerns of non-metropolitan local
officials and Indian Tribal Governments and Federal land managing
agencies are spelled out as a source of concerns that shall be
considered.
Section 1410.210 Coordination of Planning Process Activities
Current Sec. 450.210 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.210.
Reflecting the simplification of language provided by the change in
planning factors, paragraph (a) would be revised to focus on required
planning coordination efforts. This general approach would eliminate
the need to spell out in detail all of the specific coordination
efforts previously articulated. We believe that the substance of
coordination and the process overall remain intact even though the
language is vastly simplified. References to the air quality planning
process in Sec. 1410.210(b) reflect the
[[Page 33932]]
general role afforded the State transportation planning agency in the
air quality planning process under 42 U.S.C. 7504 and the desirability
of ensuring coordination of the air quality and transportation planning
processes. The current wording of paragraph (b) would be retained as
Sec. 1410.210(e) with the addition of ``safety concerns'' to the list
of issues to be coordinated.
Section 1410.212 Participation by Interested Parties
Current Sec. 450.212 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.212.
Overall, current Sec. 450.212 (public involvement) would be broadened
to focus on all facets of participation in the statewide planning
process. For example, the newly articulated provisions regarding
consultation with non-metropolitan officials would be added to this
section. In addition, the paragraphs would be redesignated.
Current Secs. 450.212(a) through (f) would become Sec. 1410.212(b)
and be revised slightly to reflect increased emphasis for public
involvement by minorities and low-income populations. The listing of
interested parties to be afforded an opportunity to comment is revised
to reflect the addition of transit users and freight service providers
in statute. This listing reflects the wording of the statute. The FHWA
and the FTA believe that the phrase ``and other interested parties''
reflects the intent of Congress to ensure that all citizens and groups
are afforded an opportunity to participate. Comments are solicited as
to whether there is a need to further elaborate the listing so as to
demonstrate that the specific groups do not constitute an exclusive
list of participants. A new Sec. 1410.212(d) would be added to
encourage the participation of state air quality and other agencies in
the transportation planning process. The existing Sec. 450.212(g) would
become Sec. 1410.212(e).
Section 1410.212(b)(2)(vii) makes provision for a periodic
evaluation of its public involvement procedures by the State. The FHWA
and the FTA believe that the assessment of such processes on a routine
basis ensures their effectiveness and enhances continued improvement.
The FHWA and the FTA also believe that the effectiveness of public
involvement processes can be strengthened through the voluntary
development of criteria on which to assess performance by States and
MPOs. Where such criteria have been developed by the planning partners,
the FHWA and the FTA will consider them in their certification reviews
and planning findings, in addition to the generally applicable
requirements for public involvement processes under Sec. 1410.212(b)(2)
and Sec. 1410.316(b).
A new Sec. 1410.212(c) focusing on participation by Federal
agencies and Indian Tribal Governments would be added to support early
involvement by these agencies and governments. Such involvement will
facilitate streamlining of environmental decisions and ensure adequate
consideration of key interests and viewpoints. The proposed wording for
the involvement of Indian Tribal Governments reflects current
deliberations within the Executive Branch regarding ways to more fully
inform and engage Indian Tribal Governments in Federal decision making
processes.
Section 1410.214 Content and Development of Statewide Transportation
Plan
Current Sec. 450.214 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.214. Two
new sections would be added to reflect legislative changes. Proposed
Sec. 1410.214(a)(3) would reflect the intelligent transportation system
consistency requirement provided under section 5206(e) of the TEA-21. A
separate rulemaking process will address the overall policy and
procedures for architecture consistency. The wording reflects that
portion of the consistency process that would be started in the
statewide planning process for non-metropolitan area projects. We are
interested in comments and observations regarding the feasibility of
this process. In our view, the basic structure would reflect the
activities normally conducted during transportation plan development.
Proposed minor information collection additions to reflect utilization
of electronic information sharing do not appear to be a major burden
addition for planning.
In addition, proposed Sec. 1410.214(d) would implement a provision,
added by TEA-21, for an optional financial plan for statewide
transportation plans. The TEA-21 did not impose a new requirement on
the States. Rather, it offers up the option of a financial plan if
decided upon by the statewide planning process participants. This
section would spell out how this option would be approached through a
statewide planning process.
Section 1410.216 Content and Development of Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program
Current Sec. 450.216 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.216. The
provisions of former Sec. 450.216(a)(1) through (a)(9) would be
redesignated and revised as Sec. 1410.216(c) providing detailed
information on the STIP. A new Sec. 1410.216(b) would spell out the
need to involve certain interests in the development of the STIP. The
parties identified are the same as those identified for the development
of the plan.
Regarding the detailed information requested for projects
identified in a STIP in Sec. 450.216(c), a new element
(Sec. 1410.216(c)(8)) regarding ITS projects funded with highway trust
funds would be added. This section reiterates the earlier planning
level discussion and would direct that projects meeting the definition
in Sec. 1410.322(b)(11) would be included in a regional architecture as
indicated in the rulemaking on ITS architecture consistency.
The new wording proposed in Sec. 1410.216(f) articulates the
legislative provision of an optional financial plan for STIPs.
Section 1410.218 Relation of Planning and Project Development
Processes
A new Sec. 1410.218 would address an optional approach to linking
statewide planning and project development processes in non-
metropolitan areas. It mirrors proposed Sec. 1410.318 which would apply
to the metropolitan planning process. The intent of this section is to
provide States with an option to more effectively rely on planning
processes as a foundation for subsequent environmental and other
project level analyses. Nothing in this section would mandate that a
State adopt the option provided. If a State chose to take advantage of
the option, the language lays out a framework to support the State's
actions. This section also would make clear that project level actions
shall be consistent with the State plan and program (see proposed
Sec. 1410.218(e)). For further information, please see the preamble
section related to metropolitan planning, proposed Sec. 1410.318.
Section 1410.220 Funding of Planning Process
The content of the current Sec. 450.218 would be moved here with
changes made to the references and the section heading.
Section 1410.222 Approvals, Self-certification and Findings
Current Sec. 450.220 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.222.
Current Sec. 450.220(a)(2) would be revised slightly. Proposed
Sec. 1410.222(a)(3) through (a)(5) would articulate the existing
legislative and regulatory authorities. Subsequent paragraphs would be
redesignated and remain
[[Page 33933]]
generally unchanged. A new Sec. 1410.222(a)(10) would be added.
We are proposing to modify existing Sec. 450.220(b) slightly to
indicate the relationship of the planning finding to self-
certifications by the State. In addition, current language provided at
Sec. 450.220(c) would be redesignated and combined with a new
Sec. 1410.222(b) to clarify the relationship of findings with possible
Federal actions.
Proposed Sec. 1410.222(c) that details the approval period for a
STIP would modify the text of current Sec. 450.220(d). STIP extensions
(and by their inclusion, TIP extensions) would be limited to 180 days.
Further, no STIP extension would be granted in nonattainment and
maintenance areas. We believe that this policy eliminates substantial
confusion regarding application of the Clean Air Act (CAA) conformity
provisions in nonattainment and maintenance areas. We also believe that
the focus should be on ensuring regular STIP updates, rather than
finding a way to maintain funding flows that may conflict with the
provisions of the CAA. The overall limit on extensions serves the same
general purpose for attainment areas of ensuring that updates are
accomplished rather than continuing to rely on out of date documents.
Section 1410.224 Project Selection
Current Sec. 450.222 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.224 and the
references to funding categories updated. Generally, however, it would
remain unchanged. Proposed new paragraph (e) would provide the option
for expedited procedures where agreed to by the planning participants.
The current topic of this section (Sec. 450.224 phase-in requirements)
would be eliminated.
Section 1410.226 Applicability of NEPA to Transportation Planning and
Programming
This section simply proposes to restate the provisions of the TEA-
21 which direct that decisions by the Secretary regarding plans and
programs are not Federal actions subject to the provisions of the NEPA.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
Section 1410.300 Purpose of Planning Process
Current Sec. 450.300 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.300. This
statement would remain essentially unchanged. The exceptions are a
minor wording change for clarity of Federal expectations with regard to
plan content and the addition of the word ``management'' to reflect the
revised declaration of policy in 23 U.S.C. 134(a) as revised by the
TEA-21.
Section 1410.302 Organizations and Processes Affected by Planning
Requirements
Current Sec. 450.302 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.302. The
principal change would be to add organizations charged with ``project
development'' in metropolitan areas to the affected organizations. This
would reflect the general emphasis of the revised rule on more
efficiently and effectively linking planning and project development as
a means to streamlining decision making and towards ensuring that
projects are based on the planning process. The statutory authorizing
language reference would be added also.
Section 1410.304 Definitions
Current Sec. 450.304 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.304. This
section would remain unchanged with the exception of referencing
definitions in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
Section 1410.306 What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization and How
Is It Created
Current Sec. 450.306 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.306. Minor
changes are proposed for existing Sec. 450.306(a) to provide clarity
regarding the designation of multiple MPOs serving a single
metropolitan area. The wording would more clearly emphasize a
preference for not designating more than one MPO in metropolitan areas.
We believe that this is consistent with the intent of legislative
language changes and the principles of comprehensive transportation
planning for metropolitan areas.
Current Secs. 450.306(b) and (c) would remain unchanged. Current
Sec. 450.306(d) and (g) would be combined and redesignated as
Sec. 1410.306(f), Sec. 450.306(e) would be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.306(d) and Sec. 450.306(f) would be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.306(e). Editing for clarity of intent would simplify the
language. Current Sec. 450.306(e) would be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.306(d). Sections 450.306(h) through (k) would be redesignated
as Secs. 1410.306 (g) through (j), respectively, and revised.
Section 1410.308 Establishing the Geographic Boundaries for
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Areas.
Current Sec. 450.308 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.308.
Revisions made by the TEA-21 to 23 U.S.C. 134 require the modification
of existing Sec. 450.308, which also would be edited for clarification
of language. Boundaries in effect as of June 9, 1998, the date of
presidential signature for the TEA-21, would remain in effect unless
modified by the policy board of the MPO in cooperation with the
Governor. The provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134, as modified by the ISTEA,
required planning area boundaries to be extended to the limits of the
nonattainment area where that area was larger than the transportation
planning area.
New MPOs designated after June 9, 1998, would have to take into
account the existence of non-attainment and maintenance areas and
reflect them as agreed to by the Governor and local officials in the
proposed metropolitan planning area boundaries.
In either case, the existing MPO or new MPO, non-attainment and
maintenance areas left outside the metropolitan planning areas would
have to be addressed in an agreement between the State and the MPO as
proposed at paragraph Sec. 1410.310(f).
The option of extending the metropolitan planning area boundary to
the limits of the metropolitan statistical area would be retained as
provided in the statute. This continuation and the changes discussed in
the preceding paragraphs are captured in proposed revisions included in
Sec. 1410.308(a).
The wording of current Sec. 450.308(b) would remain unchanged. The
provisions of current Sec. 450.308(c) would be slightly modified for
clarification. No changes are proposed for Sec. 450.308(d).
A new Sec. 1410.308(e) proposes to address the expenditure of
Surface Transportation Program funds attributable to a Transportation
Management Area (TMA). The intent of the section is to more clearly
state, what has been the FHWA and the FTA policy since 1992, that these
funds cannot be expended outside the boundaries of the metropolitan
area. They may be expended anywhere inside the metropolitan area
including areas outside the urbanized area.
Section 1410.310 Agreements Among Organizations Involved in the
Planning Process
Current Sec. 450.310 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.310.
Current Sec. 450.310(a) would be retained in its current form except
for the elimination of a reference to corridor and subarea studies. A
new proposed Sec. 1410.310(b) would state the overall relationship
between planning and project development activities. This section would
support the option for conducting project development activities as
planning activities under the general relationship between
[[Page 33934]]
planning and project development as established under the proposed new
Sec. 1410.318.
Current Sec. 450.310(c) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.310(c)
and the text would remain unchanged except for minor wording revisions
for clarification. Section 450.310(d) would be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.310(h) and revised for clarity. Current Sec. 450.310(e) would
be revised by dropping the reference to a definition of a prospectus in
Sec. 450.104. A definition is not required since the nature of
prospectus is well established in practice as a statement of ongoing
planning activities that continue from year-to-year as a foundation for
producing transportation plans and programs.
The current Sec. 450.310(f) would be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.310(e) and modified slightly by a wording change to support
the revisions to the air quality and transportation planning area
boundary relationship. The change is intended to suggest that actions
that would leave portions of nonattainment and maintenance areas
outside a metropolitan transportation planning area, but contiguous to
such an area, should be addressed in consultation with the FHWA, the
FTA, and the EPA. The decision to leave such areas outside a
metropolitan planning area is the responsibility of the Governor and
the MPO acting cooperatively.
A proposed new Sec. 1410.310(g) has been added to reflect the
impact of section 5206(e) of the TEA-21. The proposed section requires
an agreement among agencies planning and implementing ITS projects and
is intended to ensure that the planning and operating agencies
specifically agree on an approach to integrated ITS implementation
consistent with the options provided in the National ITS Architecture.
This provision would direct that this relationship should be covered by
agreement within the metropolitan planning area and addresses the
policy and operational issues affecting ITS implementation. Where
current agreements do not already address these relationships, they
would be modified to reflect the provisions of this section. Where
possible, existing agreements, per the provisions of Sec. 1410.310(i),
would be modified to incorporate the ITS integration strategy required
under proposed Sec. 1410.322(b)(11).
A new proposed Sec. 1410.310(h) would permit a single agreement for
all activities under Sec. 1410.310 where agreed to by the participants.
The wording in current Sec. 450.310(h) remains unchanged from its
current text and would be included in a redesignated Sec. 1410.310(i).
Section 1410.312 Planning Process Organizational Relationships
Current Sec. 450.312 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.312.
Existing Sec. 450.312(a) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.312(a) and
modified in several places to reflect wording changes in the subsequent
provisions of Secs. 1410.314 through 1410.322. A phrase would be made
to reflect international border planning with Canada and Mexico.
The text of current Sec. 450.312(b) would be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.312(b) and remain unchanged.
The organization of current Sec. 450.312(c) and some of the
previous content would be modified and redesignated as
Sec. 1410.312(c). The content modifications are intended to clarify how
MPO transportation planning activities and planning products are
related to air quality planning activities and products. Under 42
U.S.C. 7504, MPOs and State transportation planning organizations are
expected to have a formal role in air quality planning. At another
level, the transportation and air quality planning processes would work
more efficiently if the responsible agencies were more actively engaged
in each other's processes. Hence, the proposed rule would more
explicitly direct MPOs to participate in air quality planning
activities. We would expect that the air quality planning agencies,
under the U.S. EPA's conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93),
would be actively engaged in the transportation planning process. The
development of transportation control measures is specifically revised
to clarify that new TCMs proposed for funding with FHWA and/or FTA
transportation funds or requiring an FHWA or FTA approval can occur
during a conformity lapse, if new TCMs are included in an interim plan
and interim TIP that satisfy the provisions of this part and are
approved into a SIP with identified emission reduction benefits
(specified but not necessarily credited in the applicable SIP). The
proposals herein implement and clarify the planning regulations
consistent with the ``National Memorandum of Understanding between the
US Department of Transportation and the US Environmental Protection
Agency,'' which was signed on April 19, 2000. This memorandum of
understanding outlines procedures for advancing new TCMs during a
conformity lapse.
Current Sec. 450.312(d) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.312(d)
and remain unchanged.
Minor wording changes would be made to current Sec. 450.312(e)
[proposed Sec. 1410.312(e)] to clarify required coordination in
circumstances where more than one MPO is involved in transportation
planning for a contiguous metropolitan area, including multi-state
areas.
Proposed Sec. 1410.312(f) (current Sec. 450.312(f)) would be
revised for text clarity. Proposed Sec. 1410.312(g) (current
Sec. 450.312(g)) would be revised to remove a specific reference to
cooperative development of the congestion management system (CMS) since
it is incorporated in the management system regulation provided at 23
CFR part 500.
Current Sec. 450.312(h) is redesignated as Sec. 1410.312(h) and
revised. Proposed Sec. 1410.312(i) (current Sec. 450.312(i)) would be
revised by replacing the words ``involved appropriately'' with
``consulted'' to more accurately reflect the statutory intention.
A new Sec. 1410.312(j) is proposed to reflect the legislative
changes of the TEA-21 which added several new discretionary grant
programs. This section asserts that the projects (other than planning
and research activities) funded through these programs must be
addressed through the transportation planning process and included, as
appropriate, in transportation plans and programs. Planning and
research activities funded under the referenced programs are addressed
in the Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWP) for each metropolitan
planning area.
Section 1410.314 Planning Tasks and Work Program
Current Sec. 450.314(a) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.314(a).
The provisions of this overall section remain largely unchanged except
for wording revisions for clarity or to reflect modifications in other
sections, e.g., elimination of the MIS proposed under Sec. 1410.318.
One change to Sec. 450.314(a) proposes to drop the reference to TMAs.
This is intended to suggest that all MPOs have a responsibility to meet
the requirements of this section. It does not prevent a smaller,
attainment area MPO from proposing a prospectus or a simplified work
program. Paragraph (c) of current Sec. 450.314 would be revised and
redesignated as Sec. 1410.314(c). A new paragraph (d) will be added as
Sec. 1410.314(d).
Section 1410.316 Transportation Plan Development
Current Sec. 450.316 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.316.
Overall this section has extensive proposed revisions for several
reasons. The
[[Page 33935]]
metropolitan planning factors were revised by the TEA-21; reduced in
number from 16 to 7. The wording in Sec. 450.316(a) would be revised by
substituting the seven planning factors identified in the TEA-21 for
those previously identified by the ISTEA. All parenthetical
amplification would be removed and the wording would be the same as
that used in the statute. We plan to issue guidance regarding
interpretation and application of the planning factors. This will be
especially true of new planning goals, such as safety, environmental
considerations, and operations and management, which have been added to
the list.
The US EPA has suggested that the FTA and the FHWA amplify and
elaborate the detail in the regulation regarding the meaning of the
planning factors. The agencies have kept the language as stipulated in
the statute. However, the agencies believe that substantial benefits
can be realized by States and MPOs in applying the planning factors,
under Secs. 1410.214 and 1410.316(a), aggressively, most notably in
supporting the provisions of Sec. 450.318 below. The planning factors
can serve as a key focal point for developing plans and programs and
MPOs and States may develop specific rationales to guide their
utilization in the plan development process. Indeed, where States and
MPOs choose to develop their own performance criteria to monitor the
results of planning, they may be well served by utilizing the planning
factors as a base for those criteria. The FTA and the FHWA will support
efforts by States and MPOs to utilize such criteria by addressing them
in Federal reviews and assessments. In addition, the agencies will seek
to develop specific examples of how the planning factors can support
effective plan development and environmental streamlining.
Streamlining, as an activity to reduce project level burden and delay,
could be more readily achieved if the planning process provides an
early consideration of the planning factors.
The FHWA and the FTA welcome suggestions on exemplary State and MPO
procedures or data collection efforts already in place or under
development and how those might be replicated in other State or MPO
planning processes. We are interested also in specialized training
efforts, e.g., safety, that may have been developed or needed by States
and MPOs. We also recognize that it will take some time to develop
syntheses of current practices and other tools. However, it is our
intent to work with States, MPOs, and others to ensure that tools and
examples are made available in a timely manner.
The public involvement provisions would be modified for clarity and
would reflect the provisions of Presidential Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice and implementing DOT and FHWA orders. Similar
changes have been made regarding references to compliance with the
provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The
organization of Sec. 450.316 would be modified slightly to reflect
these changes and to provide clarity in understanding them.
The listing of interested parties to be afforded an opportunity to
comment is revised to reflect the addition of transit users and freight
service providers in statute. This listing reflects the wording of the
statute. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the phrase ``and other
interested parties'' reflects the intent of Congress to ensure that all
citizens and groups are afforded an opportunity to participate.
Comments are solicited as to whether there is a need to further
elaborate the listing so as to demonstrate that the specific groups do
not constitute an exclusive list of participants.
Section 1410.316(b)(9) makes provision for a periodic evaluation of
its public involvement procedures by the State. The FHWA and the FTA
believe that the assessment of such processes on a routine basis
ensures their effectiveness and enhances continued improvement. The
FHWA and the FTA also believe that the effectiveness of public
involvement processes can be strengthened through the voluntary
development of criteria on which to assess performance by States and
MPOs. Where such criteria have been developed by the planning partners,
the FHWA and the FTA will consider them in their certification reviews
and planning findings.
Relatively small scale modifications to the public involvement
provisions are proposed as follows: (1) The provision of timely
information will be modified to encourage engagement of the public
during the early stages of plan and TIP development; (2) demonstration
of timely response to comments received would be revised to highlight
response to input from minority and low-income populations; and (3)
periodic MPO evaluations of public involvement effectiveness would now
include an emphasis on the success obtained in engaging minority and
low-income populations.
Current Sec. 450.316(b)(2) is proposed to be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.316(c). Additional attention is drawn to the provisions of
Executive Order 12898 and implementing DOT and FHWA orders.
Specifically, data necessary for the purposes of conducting planning
analyses for plan development are identified as contributors to the
demonstration of compliance with the Executive Order. We are required
to assure compliance with the Executive Order and will rely on the data
identified under this section for that purpose. In addition, the
statutory and regulatory requirements identified in this section apply
to State DOTs, MPOs, and transit operators. Consequently, additional
data and analyses are proposed as a basis for demonstrating that plans
and resulting programs will be consistent with the referenced statutory
requirements. Additional guidance will be issued to refine and amplify
the basic framework established by these provisions. We believe,
however, that much of the proposed data specification was previously
required for assertions of compliance with Title VI and related
statutory authorities and, hence, should not require a major new data
collection effort.
In addition to the revised requirements of this section, the FHWA
and the FTA continue to encourage attention to the selection of members
of boards and committees that represent the demographic profile of the
metropolitan planning area served. The ability to meet the needs of the
community is enhanced by efforts designed to provide voice to as many
segments of its membership as possible. The FHWA and the FTA solicit
comments regarding additional strategies that may be effective in
serving the interests of inclusiveness in transportation decision
making.
Current Secs. 450.316(b)(3) through 450.316(b)(5) would be
redesignated as Sec. 1410.316(d) through (f). Current Sec. 450.316(c)
would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.316(g) and revised for clarity.
Current Sec. 450.316(d) is proposed to be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.316(h).
Proposed Sec. 1410.316(i) is offered to encourage the coordination
of federally funded non-emergency transportation services per the
requirements of section 1203(d)(4) of the TEA-21. The section simply
restates the legislative language.
Section 1410.318 Relation of Planning and Project Development
Processes
The TEA-21 eliminates the major investment study (MIS) as a
separate requirement as set forth in the planning regulations and calls
for integration of the requirement, as appropriate, into the planning
and NEPA analyses required under proposed 23 CFR parts 1410 and 1420.
Accordingly, current Sec. 450.318
[[Page 33936]]
would be revised to focus on the relationship between the planning and
project development processes.
Section 1308 of the TEA-21 directs the US DOT Secretary to
eliminate the separate MIS and its elements and integrate the remaining
aspects of the MIS into the planning and NEPA regulations. The FHWA and
FTA have attempted to do this by focusing on the fundamental basics of
the MIS process, i.e., the cooperative relationship of planning and
project development agencies, the early engagement of permit and
resource agencies, flexible definition of the need to do analyses as
decided by the participants and an appropriate level of public
involvement. The MIS process did not require a specific methodology for
studying alternatives, a specific set of alternatives to study, a
particular format for reports, a specific public involvement or
analytical process, or a specific set of projects to which the MIS
applied. The US EPA has specifically suggested that the MIS process
required and should require the use of cost benefit, costs
effectiveness analysis and/or other related analytical techniques. The
logic of this proposal is that early, effective consideration of
social, environmental and economic considerations in planning analyses
should permit more expedited consideration of these same issues, at a
more micro level of detail, for subsequent NEPA analyses. By linking
the planning and project development processes more effectively, the
participants can reduce time required, analytical redundancy and
process requirements by utilizing previously conducted work as a basis
for subsequent analyses and efforts. It is the belief of the FTA and
the FHWA that an aggressive utilization of the options provided here
can strengthen the planning process and streamline the project
development process substantially. The agencies are specifically
interested in comments that address the extent to which the remaining
aspects of the MIS process have been included in this proposal and
suggestions for encouraging States and MPOs to more effectively take
advantage of the options provided herein.
The overall structure of the relationship emphasizes alternatives
for planning and sponsor agencies to integrate decision processes to
take advantage of potential streamlining opportunities and for early
consultation among the MPOs, State DOTs, and transit operators. The
planning process is charged with providing an initial statement of
purpose and need for proposed transportation improvements, identifying
and evaluating alternatives (including, but not limited to, design
concept and scope) and selecting an alternative and including it in the
plan. This statement would not necessarily lead to a determination of
purpose and need on a project-by-project basis for transportation
improvements normally grouped (not specified individually) in a plan.
An alternative could be a programmatic statement of purpose and need
that identifies the basis for investing resources in a given
transportation area such as safety or pavement resurfacing.
The consideration of alternatives and other planning level analyses
done in support of plan development do not eliminate the need for
considering all reasonable alternatives during the NEPA process.
However, to the extent that the planning participants anticipate the
required consideration of all reasonable alternatives in the planning
process, they will significantly enhance, in our view, the efficiency
of the NEPA process. Well documented, thorough planning analyses should
permit the NEPA process to accept this information as a sound basis for
reducing the alternatives considered and the detail required for others
in the NEPA process. Provision also is made for policy preferences and
guidance from planning policy bodies to be included on the record for
consideration in subsequent decision steps.
Examples of issues that might be covered in the planning level
consideration of alternatives include: the consideration of
alternatives that in the past have been rejected for not fully meeting
traditional concepts of purpose and need; more broadly defined purpose
and need statements during the planning stage so that a full range of
modal alternatives are considered; an alternatives analysis that
examines ``no-build'' alternatives that use transportation demand
strategies; and, flexibility to encourage the selection of alternatives
which may have lower than originally desired levels of transportation
service if there are cost, time, and impact savings. The FHWA and the
FTA will work with the US EPA on guidance and training in this regard.
A number of alternative sources of information are identified as a
basis for the development of purpose and need, a planning level
analysis of alternatives (primarily at the level of concept and scope)
and specification of a project for inclusion in the transportation
plan. These information sources are utilized at the discretion of
participating agencies (MPO, State DOT, and transit agency) acting
jointly. The underlying logic of the proposal is that if the options to
document thoroughly and analyze fully are chosen, this effort will lead
to expedited analytical efforts in subsequent NEPA analyses. Less
robust analytical and documentation efforts would force elaboration and
analysis of alternatives during the NEPA process.
The utilization of planning analyses as a basis for project
development actions is explained. In particular the regulatory language
specifies that the results of planning analyses shall serve as input to
the environmental process under proposed 23 CFR part 1420 (current part
771), and other project level actions. Proposed Sec. 1410.318(c)
references the contents of proposed Sec. 1420.201 to provide a frame of
reference to data and analytical expectations in subsequent NEPA
process steps, i.e., the standard of analysis expected by the NEPA
process for projects. Planning, systems level, analyses that address
these data and analytical requirements can improve the efficiency of
the NEPA process and reduce data and analytical efforts required.
The ability to streamline the planning and environmental
relationship is dependent, in part, on appropriate decisions made by
the planning participants. They can choose to develop a rigorous basis
for establishing transportation purpose and need, identifying
alternatives for evaluation, and assessing these alternatives through
the planning process. Alternatively, they can choose to apply minimal
analytical techniques. At the time the NEPA analyses are undertaken for
project development, the agencies participating in that process will
review the materials provided by the planning process. Minimal analyses
in planning will have to be supplemented and elaborated to satisfy the
needs of the NEPA process. More robust planning analyses should allow
the NEPA process to reduce the need for revisiting and re-evaluating
planning level studies and instead proceed to focus on project level
considerations of location and design. Consequently, the consideration
of alternatives should be more quickly and efficiently accomplished.
A similar option exists with regard to documentation of planning
results. A set of planning activities to be documented to facilitate
this linkage is specified in Sec. 1410.318(a)(2). The option to
document is a discretionary option of the planning participants in
cooperation with appropriate project sponsors. The focus is not on the
details of documents but rather on the act of documenting the results
of analyses and studies. Robust analyses coupled with sound
documentation will permit more effective linkage and utilization of
[[Page 33937]]
planning analyses and data collection in subsequent NEPA analyses.
The early involvement of Federal and State environmental and permit
agencies is encouraged under proposed Sec. 1410.318(d) to facilitate
linking planning and environmental processes. The involvement of the
FTA is required where planning studies are proposed to satisfy
requirements of the Major Capital Investment Program administered by
the FTA under 49 CFR part 611. The TEA-21 directive that Federal
decisions on plans and programs are not considered a Federal action for
NEPA purposes is restated in proposed Sec. 1410.318(f) (the FHWA and
the FTA do not approve plans but they do approve the State TIP which is
not subject to NEPA). Finally, the basis for Federal project actions in
plans and TIPs is specifically stated. The intent of this latter
provision, in proposed Sec. 1410.318(g), is to clearly substantiate the
need for projects to be in plans before Federal actions can be taken on
them. A particular point is made that project actions and the
appropriate phase of a project must be in a plan and TIP before project
actions can be taken.
Section 1410.320 Congestion Management System and Planning Process
Current Sec. 450.320 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.320 and
would be revised to reflect the impact of the issuance of the
Management System rule (23 CFR part 500) and the National Highway
System Act of 1995, Public Law 104-59, 109 Stat. 568. The latter made
management systems optional, except for the congestion management
system in transportation management areas (TMA). Hence, the proposed
language focuses on the continuing provisions of the congestion
management system in TMAs, including the limitation on single occupant
vehicle capacity increases which remains unchanged under the TEA-21.
With the exception of current Sec. 450.320(a) which would be removed,
the remainder of the overall section is generally unchanged.
One option considered, but not included in this proposal, is to
revise 23 CFR part 500 by transferring the provisions dealing with the
congestion management system to the metropolitan planning rule. The
FHWA and the FTA would welcome comments on this idea with regard to its
utility and appropriateness.
Section 1410.322 Transportation Plan Content
Current Sec. 450.322 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.322.
Current Sec. 450.322(a) would be modified by adding a discussion of
data assumptions for plan updates. Specifically, the language would
clarify what must be considered in preparing a plan update, as a
minimum. It also would reaffirm that the MPO must approve the content
of a new plan or reaffirm existing plan content in conducting an
update. We have chosen to provide this clarification in response to
requests from stakeholders and to emphasize that a plan is a critical
document. Piecemeal revisions that incrementally revise plans do not
constitute an appropriate, accurate or meaningful basis for plan
development, implementation, and/or subsequent decision making.
A proposed minor revision would be made to Sec. 450.322(b)(2) to
reflect the emphasis on management and operation of the transportation
system.
Current Secs. 450.322(b)(3) through (b)(6) would remain unchanged
with the exception of minor edits for clarity. Current
Sec. 450.322(b)(7) would be revised to reflect the elimination of the
MIS and redesignated as Sec. 1410.322(b)(7). Current Sec. 450.322(b)(8)
would be removed. Current Secs. 450.322(b)(9) and (10) would be
redesignated as Secs. 1410.322(b)(8) and (9), respectively.
Current Sec. 450.322(b)(11) would be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.322(b)(10) and remain generally unchanged except for the
addition of the reference to ``illustrative projects.'' Illustrative
projects have no standing for transportation or air quality purposes
until such time as a financing source has been identified and they have
been formally amended into the plan by action of the MPO. At that point
they could be added to a TIP as a project to be advanced. We expect
that the MPO would coordinate its actions with the State DOT and
transit operator and vice versa. Once formally added to a plan and TIP,
these projects may be included in regional conformity findings,
advanced, and subject to appropriate project level actions by the FHWA
and the FTA.
The remainder of Sec. 450.322(b)(10) would remain generally
unchanged since the TEA-21 either did not change key provisions or
reenforced previous provisions required through regulation (e.g.,
cooperative estimates of revenue for plan development). With regard to
estimated revenues, we have opted to rely on a cooperative process of
State, MPO and transit operator estimation based on local preferences
and arrangements. We would support the cooperative process through the
provision of guidance and identification of good practices for
emulation.
A new Sec. 1410.322(b)(11) proposes to focus on intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) and the National ITS Architecture. As
provided in section 5206(e) of TEA-21, we have issued interim guidance
on compliance with this new legislative requirement. This proposed
wording is intended to be an integral element of the proposed
regulatory issuance on compliance with this requirement. A companion
NPRM issuance will be made for project development and national policy
on consistency with the National ITS Architecture. It will support
planning as the initial stage at which this consistency must begin. We
are issuing the planning component through this NPRM and solicit
comments on this proposal.
The existing wording of Sec. 450.322(c) would be redesignated as
Sec. 1410.322(c) and would be modified to add users of public transit
and freight shippers as directed by the TEA-21. A minor modification
would be made to Sec. 450.322(d) (proposed Sec. 1410.322(d)) to clarify
that if either the MPO or we fail to make a conformity determination,
the Governor or the Governor's designee must be notified.
A new Sec. 1410.322(e) would refine the operating approach to plan
changes and updates. The question of a 20-year horizon has received
substantial discussion as indicated previously. As part of the
clarification of the meaning of the term ``20-year horizon,'' we are
proposing that a plan is valid for transportation purposes if it has a
twenty year horizon at the time of adoption. If no major changes are
made to the plan, e.g., the addition of a non-exempt project, then the
plan would remain valid as a basis for Federal actions until its next
regularly scheduled update. This proposal also indicates that it is our
intent that conformity determinations by the FHWA/FTA be made as close
as possible to the MPO plan conformity finding, i.e., as soon as
possible after MPO plan adoption and conformity determination actions
are taken. The three year period and the twenty year horizon would
start at the point a Federal conformity determination is made on the
plan for a nonattainment or maintenance area. This will eliminate
confusion over the validity of the transportation plan in relation to
air quality conformity determination. A new conformity determination
would be required within eighteen months of certain SIP actions
according to 40 CFR 93.104, even if the three year period had not
expired at the time. In an attainment area, the plan would be valid for
five
[[Page 33938]]
years from MPO approval so long as no regionally significant projects
are added.
The current requirement of Sec. 450.322(e) that new plans and plan
updates be provided to us would be included in proposed
Sec. 1410.322(f).
A new Sec. 1410.322(g) would be added to authorize utilization of
an interim plan during an anticipated conformity lapse. It is the
intent of this section to permit funding of existing exempt,
transportation control measures (TCMs) and other projects that can
advance under a conformity lapse in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and
93. New TCMs under this provision can only be approved or funded during
a conformity lapse when they have been included in an approved SIP with
identified emission reduction benefits (but not necessarily credited in
the applicable SIP). Inclusion in the SIP would have to occur before
such TCMs can be advanced into completion of the NEPA process, design,
right of way acquisition and/or construction). An interim plan may be
used during a conformity lapse to advance projects that can proceed
according to 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, including existing TCMs and
existing and new exempt projects. It is the expectation of the US DOT
that this provision would be utilized for new TCM projects where a
conformity lapse would persist for six months or longer. An interim
plan may be used for periods of less than six months to advance
existing TCM and existing and new exempt projects.
Section 1410.324 Transportation Improvement Program Content
Existing Secs. 450.324(a) through (e) would have minor
modifications to the text and be redesignated as Secs. 1410.324(a)
through (e). Please note, however, that an addition to proposed
Sec. 1410.324(b) would reflect the changes in proposed Sec. 1410.222(c)
to limit STIP/TIP extensions to 180 days in attainment areas. The
prohibition against STIP/TIP extensions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas is present also in proposed Sec. 1410.324(b).
Additionally, the current wording reflects TEA-21's confirmation of the
previous regulatory provisions; most notably, the cooperative estimate
of available funds. As indicated above, the estimation process would be
achieved through locally identified processes.
In existing Sec. 450.324 (proposed Sec. 1410.324), proposed
paragraph (f)(1) would be unmodified. Paragraph (f)(2) would be
modified to reflect changes in funding categories (e.g., minimum
guarantee, etc.) and the elimination of the exemption for Motor Carrier
State Assistance Program and 23 U.S.C. 402 safety program projects from
being included in a TIP. The exemption for these two categories would
be removed to reflect the ITS consistency requirement discussed above
and the requirement that transportation projects funded with Federal-
aid funds must satisfy the requirements of 23 U.S.C. and, where
appropriate, be found conforming for air quality purposes.
In current Sec. 450.324(f)(3) (redesignated as
Sec. 1410.324(f)(3)), ``approval'' would be changed to ``action'' to
reflect a broader concept regarding the range of our activities taken
with regard to projects, i.e., not all of them are labeled
``approvals'' but, yet, they must still be based on plans and programs.
Current Secs. 450.324(f)(4) and (f)(5) would be modified and
redesignated as Secs. 1410.324(f)(5) and (f)(6), respectively. The
changes are intended to clarify that all regionally significant
projects in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas, whether
funded federally or otherwise, would be included in the metropolitan
TIP. This allows full consideration of all projects in a regional
conformity determination and ensures that the provisions of the CAA are
met.
The three year conformity period for a TIP would start from the
date of the conformity determination by the FHWA and the FTA. It is our
expectation that the time period from the point of a Federal conformity
determination on the TIP and its inclusion by the Governor's action in
the STIP and the subsequent gubernatorial approval of the STIP and
planning finding and STIP approval by the FHWA and the FTA would be
monitored to ensure efficient and expeditious processing by all
parties.
With the exception of proposed minor changes for clarification
regarding fiscal constraint, Sec. 450.324(g) (proposed
Sec. 1410.324(g)) would be unchanged. The changes would reiterate the
need for specification of funding sources for projects included in a
TIP. The wording of existing Sec. 450.324(h) (proposed
Sec. 1410.324(h)) would be unchanged. The content of Sec. 450.324(i)
(proposed Sec. 1410.324(i)) would be modified to indicate that only
regionally significant projects funded under Chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C.
need be specifically identified in a TIP. These projects are typically
``Federal Lands'' projects, e.g., Indian Reservation Roads, National
Park Service Road, etc. The existing Secs. 450.324(j) through (m)
(proposed Sec. 1410.324(j) through (m)) would be generally unchanged
except for statutory reference modifications.
Existing Sec. 450.324(n) (proposed Sec. 1410.324(n)) would be
modified to include an indication that projects are to be included on
the TIP until fully authorized. A new Sec. 1410.324(n)(5) is proposed
to require that the TIP shall serve as the basis for an annual listing
of projects, supplemented as appropriate, to ensure adequate public
information regarding projects funded with Federal monies. Both changes
are geared at ensuring greater clarity as to what projects must be
included on a TIP.
The second change to proposed Sec. 1410.324(n) serves another
purpose--encouraging greater public knowledge regarding which projects
have been advanced. In this case, we are opting to allow the planning
participants the flexibility to design a process to comply with the
legislative directive provided in section 134(h)(7)(B) of title 23
U.S.C. for an annual listing of projects. While the statute focuses on
the MPO, we believe that the State DOT, transit operator, and the MPO
operating jointly can produce the required information.
The MPO, in cooperation with its planning partners would, under
this proposal, utilize the TIP as the basis for the annual listing.
Each year the participating agencies would identify the projects that
advanced (or did not) and publish the ``list'' jointly, in a fashion
consistent with the public involvement provisions for the metropolitan
area. Changes to the TIP would be acknowledged and reflected in
modifications to the annual listing as appropriate.
Current Sec. 450.324(o) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.324(o)
with no other changes.
In general, we believe that it may be possible to further
streamline the information and procedural requirements expected of
TIPs, particularly with regard to financial information. We would be
interested in any possible information reduction options that may be
possible while maintaining the principles and practices of sound public
involvement and fiscal constraint.
A new Sec. 1410.324(p) would be added to authorize utilization of
an interim TIP during an anticipated conformity lapse. It is the intent
of this section to permit funding of existing exempt, transportation
control measures (TCMs) and other projects that can advance under a
conformity lapse in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. New TCMs
under this provision can only be approved or funded when they have been
included in an approved SIP with identified emission reduction benefits
(but not necessarily credited in the
[[Page 33939]]
applicable SIP). These TCMs would have to be included in the SIP before
they can be advanced into completion of the NEPA process, design, right
of way acquisition and/or construction). An interim plan may be used
during a conformity lapse to advance projects that can proceed
according to 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, including existing TCMs and
existing and new exempt projects. It is the expectation of the US DOT
that this provision would be utilized for new TCM projects where a
conformity lapse would persist for six months or longer. An interim TIP
may be used for periods of less than six months to advance existing TCM
and existing and new exempt projects.
Section 1410.326 Transportation Improvement Program Modification
Current Sec. 450.326 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.326. The
only change to this section would be to clarify when a new conformity
determination is necessary. The addition of non-exempt projects, or
replacement of an existing TIP by a new TIP, requires a new conformity
determination. Similarly, moving a project or a phase of a project from
year four, five, or later of a TIP to the first three years would be an
amendment and require a new conformity determination. We believe that
frequent modification of TIPs through the addition of non-exempt
projects is inconsistent with the principles of fiscal constraint and
public involvement. Hence, we intend to make it clear that a new
conformity determination is necessary unless the changes to TIPs are
minor, i.e., addition or deletion of exempt projects.
Section 450.328 Transportation Improvement Program Relationship to
Statewide TIP
Current Sec. 450.328 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.328. The
text would remain unchanged.
Section 1410.330 Transportation Improvement Program Action by FHWA/FTA
Current Sec. 450.330 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.330. The
provisions of current Secs. 450.330(a) and (b) would be redesignated as
Secs. 1410.330(a) and (b). There would be very minor wording changes
for clarification or technical corrections. A new Sec. 1410.330(c)
would be added to address the addition of ``illustrative projects'' to
TIPs. This paragraph makes it clear that no Federal action may be taken
on these projects until they become formally included in the TIP as
indicated previously.
Consistent with the overall purposes of the planning process and
the need for Federal actions on planning processes and products as
appropriate as described in this proposed regulation, project funding
is contingent on the existence of a plan and TIP. If a plan and TIP are
not updated as required herein, new funding actions cannot be taken.
Section 1410.332 Selecting Projects from a TIP
Current Sec. 450.332 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.332.
Current Secs. 450.332(a), (b) and (c) would be redesignated as
Secs. 1410.332((b), (c) and (a), respectively, with only citation
corrections to the text. Proposed Secs. 1410.332(d) and (e) (current
Secs. 450.332(d) and (e), respectively) would include citation
corrections and in paragraph (e) the word ``will'' would become
``shall'' to reflect the force of law under the CAA. Consistent with
previous program practice by the FHWA and the FTA, selecting a project
for advancement from year two or three of a TIP does not require a TIP
amendment.
Section 1410.334 Certifications
Current Sec. 450.334 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.334.
Current Sec. 450.334(a) would have three new paragraphs (a)(6) through
(a)(8) under this proposal. These paragraphs add references to
compliance with additional Federal statutes but do not represent new
compliance requirements. These requirements previously existed and the
regulations would be revised to point out their existence.
Paragraph (d) would be revised to clarify the basis for Federal
certification actions in relation to Federal findings during the review
process. The wording of current paragraph (e) would be the same as the
sanctions specified in paragraph (f). Current paragraph (g) would be
eliminated to reflect changes made by the TEA-21 (related to the
failure to remain certified for two years after October 1994). A new
proposed Sec. 1410.334(g) would focus on the new statutory requirement
for public involvement during a certification review. We previously
required this through administrative directive. Hence, there would be
no change in practice, other than to further encourage broad public
outreach as part of certification reviews.
Phase-in of New Requirements
No phase-in period for any requirements under the TEA-21 is
proposed. Current Sec. 450.336 would be removed. Comments on the
desirability of such requirements and the specific areas for which they
are warranted are welcome.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, we
will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons
should continue to examine the docket for new material.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies
We have determined that this rulemaking is a significant regulatory
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under Department
of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures because of
substantial State, local government, congressional, and public
interest. These interests involve receipt of Federal financial support
for transportation investments, appropriate compliance with statutory
requirements, and balancing of transportation mobility and
environmental goals. This rulemaking is a revision to an existing
regulation for which the costs of compliance have previously been
addressed. The modifications proposed herein are intended to reduce
current regulatory requirements (e.g., simplification of planning
factors, elimination of separate MIS requirement, simplification of
planning area boundary establishment, etc.) and to add some additional
data analysis requirements (e.g., elaboration of environmental justice
data analyses, preparation of an Intelligent Transportation Systems
Integration Strategy, addition of operations and management
responsibility, etc.). In preparing this proposal, the agencies have
sought to maintain existing flexibility of operation wherever possible
for States, MPOs, and other affected organizations and utilize already
existing processes to accomplish any new tasks or activities. As a
result, we believe that the economic impact of this rulemaking in
comparison to the existing regulation should be the same or less.
The marginal additional costs associated with these proposed rules
are attributable to the streamlining
[[Page 33940]]
provisions of the TEA-21. Achieving the goals of these provisions more
efficiently and effectively warrants the regulatory changes proposed
herein. Furthermore, we provide substantial financial assistance to
States and MPOs to support compliance with the regulatory requirements
of this part. Funding for the planning process increased substantially
under the TEA-21 and should, we believe, off-set much of the economic
impact on entities complying with these requirements.
This proposed rule would revise existing metropolitan planning
regulations of the FHWA and the FTA and conform those regulations to
requirements of the TEA-21. While they incorporate some new
requirements, the bulk of them have been in place for many years and
States and metropolitan planning organizations have been implementing
them. In the past, we have provided funding to support planning
activities and production of required transportation documents, e.g.,
transportation plans and improvement programs. During Fiscal Year 1999,
the FHWA will provide in excess of $187 million for metropolitan
planning and $492 million for State planning and research activities.
The FTA provided $42 million for metropolitan planning. For both
agencies, there is a statutory matching grant requirement which
stipulates that recipients must match Federal funds at least on an 80
percent Federal, 20 percent recipient basis. To meet the State planning
funds matching requirement, States will expend approximately $98
million. The MPOs will have to provide approximately $46 million of
non-Federal funds to match the Federal metropolitan planning funds (the
FHWA and the FTA funds combined). If the States and other recipient's
choose not to accept Federal support for transportation they would not
have to develop the plans and programs stipulated in this proposed
rule. Hence, the Federal government provides a substantial economic
incentive to encourage State and metropolitan planning. In addition,
these rules support the EPA conformity regulation at 40 CFR parts 53
and 91 which establishes requirements for MPOs to perform regional
transportation and emissions modeling and to document the regional air
quality impacts of transportation improvements contained in plans and
programs.
The impacts on the States and MPOs result mainly from modified data
collection and analysis activities that may be necessary to implement
the TEA-21 planning provisions. A single new provision in
Sec. 1410.322(b)(11) focuses on the requirements for satisfying section
5206(e) of the TEA-21 regarding demonstrating consistency of
Intelligent Transportation Systems projects funded with highway trust
fund dollars with the provisions of the National ITS Architecture. The
economic impacts of this provision are addressed in the regulatory
analysis being prepared for the specific rulemaking on ITS architecture
consistency. We anticipate that the elements required in the planning
process for ITS consistency would generally be undertaken anyway as a
part of the plan development activities and do not require significant
new processes or requirements of MPOs and States.
In general, we believe that the rule changes proposed here have
added limited regulatory requirements. The impact of complying with the
changes can be minimized by States and MPOs by using the flexibility
provided in the proposed rule to reduce data collection and analysis
costs. While there may be additional costs to some States and MPOs, the
TEA-21 significantly increased the mandatory set-aside in Federal funds
that must be used for transportation planning, and in addition, gives
the States and MPOs the flexibility to use Federal capital dollars for
transportation planning if they so desire. We are interested in the
costs to States and MPOs of complying with the proposed requirements,
including the expenditure of State and MPO funds above the required
matching amounts. Comments on this matter are welcome.
The agencies welcome comment on the economic impacts of these
proposed regulations. Comments, including those from the States and
MPOs, regarding specific burdens, impacts, and costs would be most
welcome and would aid us in more fully appreciating the impacts of this
ongoing planning process requirement. Hence, we encourage comments on
all facets of this proposal regarding its costs, burden, and impact.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-
354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of these rules on
small entities, such as, local governments and businesses. The proposed
metropolitan and statewide planning regulations modify existing
planning requirements. These modifications are substantially dictated
by the statutory provisions of the TEA-21. We believe that the
flexibility available to States and MPOs in responding to requirements
has been maintained, if not enhanced, in this proposal. Accordingly,
the FHWA and the FTA certify that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We are interested in any comments regarding the potential economic
impacts of these proposed rules on small entities and governments. Of
specific concern are the additional costs of the incremental changes in
our regulatory requirements. The agencies believe that these costs have
been off-set largely by reduced statutory requirements and the
flexibility built into the regulations. The agencies are requesting
comments on these issues.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)
This proposed action has been reviewed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated
August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that this action does not
have a substantial direct effect or sufficient Federalism implications
on States and local governments that would limit the policymaking
discretion of the States. Nothing in this document directly preempts
any State law or regulation. The TEA-21 and its predecessors authorize
the Secretary to implement the provisions for metropolitan and
statewide planning. We believe that policies in these proposed rules
are consistent with the principles, criteria and requirements of the
Federalism Executive Order and the TEA-21. Comments on these
conclusions are welcomed and should be submitted to the docket.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 20.205,
Highway planning and Construction (or 20.217); 20.500, Federal Transit
Capital Improvement Grants; 20.505, Federal Transit Technical Studies
Grants; 20.507, Federal Transit Capital and Operating Assistance
Formula Grants. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation in Federal programs and
activities apply to these programs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), 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. We have determined
that this proposal contains a requirement for minor additional data
[[Page 33941]]
collection to satisfy the provisions of the TEA-21 associated with ITS
and environmental justice. The FHWA and the FTA believe that this
burden increase has been off-set by decreases in requirements
associated with the seven planning factors and related matters.
The reporting requirements for metropolitan UPWPs, transportation
plans and transportation improvement programs are currently approved
under OMB control number 2132-0529. An extension request was filed with
OMB on January 28, 2000, and a Notice of Request for Extension was
published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2000 (65 FR 18421). The
analysis supporting this approval was conducted by the FTA on behalf of
both the FTA and the FHWA since the regulations are jointly issued by
both agencies. The reporting requirements for statewide transportation
plans and programs are also approved under this same OMB control
number. The information collection requirements addressed under the
current OMB approval number (2132-0529) impose a total burden of
241,850 hours on the planning agencies that must comply with the
requirements in the existing regulation. We initiated the preparation
of materials to obtain a new three year approval from OMB in January
2000. The request for a new data collection approval will be filed with
OMB before publication of this NPRM. The FHWA and the FTA are
soliciting comments on this NPRM regarding the extent to which any
additional burden, beyond that associated with the current collection
requirement, will be incurred by States and MPOs.
The creation and submission of required reports and documents have
been constrained to those specifically required by the TEA-21 or
essential to the performance of our findings, certifications and/or
approvals. The State plans are prepared on cycles individually
determined by the States; the average is 10 such submissions per year.
The State TIPs are prepared every two years. Approximately one third of
all metropolitan areas prepare new plans every three years. The
remaining metropolitan plans are updated every five years. We have
assumed a distribution over several years for the plans. We have
assumed that half of all TIPs are submitted annually. We assume an
annual submission of unified planning work programs. By distributing
the added burden for preparing these various submissions, the net
result would be a minimal burden increase for each type of submission.
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any
aspect of this information collection, including, but not limited to:
(1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the
proper performance of the functions of the FHWA and the FTA; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to
minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the
collected information. Comments submitted in response to the NPRM will
be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's clearance of
this information collection.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed these proposed actions for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). It
is our determination this action is consistent with the provisions of
23 CFR 771.117(c)(20) which deems the issuance of regulations of this
nature to meet the requirements for a Categorical Exclusion.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one year. (2 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.)
The requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 are supported by Federal
funds administered by the FHWA and the FTA. There is a legislatively
established local matching requirement for these funds of twenty
percent of the total project cost. The FHWA and the FTA believe that
the costs of complying with these requirements is predominantly covered
by the funds they administer. However, as has been the case with
previous regulatory issuances, we welcome comments from States, MPOs,
transit agencies and other organizations regarding the extent to which
the cost of compliance is covered by the funds provided.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
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 every year. The RINs contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
23 CFR Parts 450 and 1410
Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Mass
transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 613
Grant programs--transportation, Mass transportation, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 621
Grant programs--transportation, Mass transportation, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Chapter I
For reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of
23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 315, the FHWA proposes to amend Chapter I of
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 450--[REMOVED]
1. Remove part 450.
23 CFR Chapter IV
2. For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration propose to
establish a new chapter IV in title 23, Code of Federal Regulations,
consisting of part 1410 as set forth below:
[[Page 33942]]
CHAPTER IV--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 1410--METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE PLANNING
Subpart A--Definitions
Sec.
1410.100 Purpose.
1410.102 Applicability.
1410.104 Definitions.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming
1410.200 Purpose.
1410.202 Applicability.
1410.204 Definitions.
1410.206 Statewide transportation planning process basic
requirements.
1410.208 Consideration of statewide transportation planning
factors.
1410.210 Coordination of planning process activities.
1410.212 Participation by interested parties.
1410.214 Content and development of statewide transportation plan.
1410.216 Content and development of statewide transportation
improvement program.
1410.218 Relation of planning and project development processes.
1410.220 Funding of planning process.
1410.222 Approvals, self-certification and findings.
1410.224 Project selection.
1410.226 Applicability of NEPA to transportation planning and
programming.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
1410.300 Purpose of planning process.
1410.302 Organizations and processes affected by planning
requirements.
1410.304 Definitions.
1410.306 What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization and how is
it created?
1410.308 Establishing the geographic boundaries for metropolitan
transportation planning areas.
1410.310 Agreements among organizations involved in the planning
process.
1410.312 Planning process organizational relationships.
1410.314 Planning tasks and unified work program.
1410.316 Transportation planning process and plan development.
1410.318 Relation of planning and project development processes.
1410.320 Congestion management system and planning process.
1410.322 Transportation plan content.
1410.324 Transportation improvement program content.
1410.326 Transportation improvement program modification.
1410.328 Metropolitan transportation improvement program
relationship to statewide TIP.
1410.330 Transportation improvement program action by FHWA/FTA.
1410.332 Selecting projects from a TIP.
1410.334 Federal certifications.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 315; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49
U.S.C. 5303-5305; 49 CFR 1.48 and 1.51.
Subpart A Definitions
Sec. 1410.100 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to provide definitions for terms
used in this part which go beyond those terms defined in 23 U.S.C.
101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302.
Sec. 1410.102 Applicability.
The definitions in this subpart are applicable to this part, except
as otherwise provided.
Sec. 1410.104 Definitions.
Except as defined in this subpart, terms defined in 23 U.S.C.
101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302 are used in this part as so defined.
Conformity lapse means that the conformity determination for a
transportation plan or TIP has expired, and thus there is no currently
conforming transportation plan and TIP.
Conformity rule means the EPA Transportation Conformity Rule, as
amended, 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
Congestion management system means a systematic process for
managing congestion that provides information on transportation system
performance and on alternative strategies for alleviating congestion
and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet
State and local needs.
Consultation means that one party confers with another party, in
accordance with an established process, about an anticipated action and
then keeps that party informed about actions taken.
Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the
planning and/or project development processes work together to achieve
a common goal or objective.
Coordination means the comparison of the transportation plans,
programs, and schedules of one agency with related plans, programs and
schedules of other agencies and adjustment of plans, programs and
schedules to achieve general consistency.
Design concept means the type of facility identified by the
project, e.g., freeway, expressway, arterial highway, grade-separated
highway, reserved right-of-way rail transit, mixed-traffic rail
transit, exclusive busway, etc.
Design scope means the design aspects which will affect the
proposed facility's impact on regional emissions, usually as they
relate to vehicle or person carrying capacity and control, e.g., number
of lanes or tracks to be constructed or added, length of project,
signalization, access control including approximate number and location
of interchanges, preferential treatment for high-occupancy vehicles,
etc.
Federally funded non-emergency transportation services means
transportation services provided to the general public, including those
with special transport needs, by public transit, private non-profit
service providers, and private third-party contractors to public
agencies.
Financial estimate means a projection of Federal and State
resources that will serve as a basis for developing plans and /or TIPs.
Freight shipper means an entity that utilizes a freight carrier in
the movement of its goods.
Governor means the Governor of any one of the fifty States, or
Puerto Rico, and includes the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Illustrative project means a transportation improvement that would
be included in a financially constrained transportation plan and
program if reasonable additional financial resources were available to
support it.
Indian Tribal Government means a duly formed governing body of an
Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or
community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as
an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List
Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.
Interim plan means a plan composed of projects eligible to proceed
under a conformity lapse (as defined in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and
otherwise meeting all other provisions of this part including adoption
by the MPOs.
Interim transportation improvement program means a TIP composed of
projects eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse (as defined in 40
CFR parts 51 and 93 ) and otherwise meeting all other provisions of
this part including approval by the Governor.
ITS integration strategy means a systematic approach for
coordinating and implementing intelligent transportation system
investments funded with Federal highway trust funds to achieve an
integrated regional system.
Maintenance area means any geographic region of the United States
previously designated nonattainment pursuant to the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAA) and subsequently redesignated to attainment
subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance plan under section
175A of the CAA, as amended.
[[Page 33943]]
Management and operation means actions and strategies aimed at
improving the person, vehicle and/or freight carrying capacity, safety,
efficiency and effectiveness of the existing and future transportation
system to enhance mobility and accessibility in the area served.
Metropolitan planning area means the geographic area in which the
metropolitan transportation planning process required by 23 U.S.C. 134
and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306 must be carried out.
Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) means the forum for
cooperative transportation decision making for the metropolitan
planning area pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
Metropolitan transportation plan means the official intermodal
transportation plan that is developed and adopted through the
metropolitan transportation planning process for the metropolitan
planning area, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C.
5303.
Nonattainment area means any geographic region of the United States
which has been designated as nonattainment under section 107 of the CAA
for any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard
exists.
Non-metropolitan local official means elected or appointed
officials of general purpose local government, outside metropolitan
planning areas, with jurisdiction/responsibility for transportation or
other community development actions that impact transportation and
elected officials for special transportation and planning agencies,
such as economic development districts and land use planning agencies.
Provider of freight transportation services means a shipper or
carrier which transports or otherwise facilitates the movement of goods
from one point to another.
Purpose and need means the intended outcome and sustaining
rationale for a proposed transportation improvement, including, but not
limited, to mobility deficiencies for identified populations and
geographic areas.
Regionally significant project means a transportation project
(other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves
regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area
outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major
planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc.,
or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and
would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's
transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial
highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an
alternative to regional highway travel.
State means any one of the fifty States, the District of Columbia,
or Puerto Rico.
State implementation plan (SIP) means:
(1) The implementation plan which contains specific strategies for
controlling emissions of and reducing ambient levels of pollutants in
order to satisfy Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for demonstrations of
reasonable further progress and attainment (CAA secs. 182(b)(1),
182(c)(2)(A), 182(c)(2)(B), 187(a)(7), 189(a)(1)(B), and 189(b)(1)(A);
and secs.192(a) and 192(b), for nitrogen dioxide of the CAA); or
(2) The implementation plan under section 175A of the CAA as
amended.
Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) means a staged,
multi-year, statewide, intermodal program of transportation projects
which is consistent with the statewide transportation plan and planning
processes and metropolitan plans, TIPs and processes pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 135.
Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) extension means
the lengthening of the scheduled duration of an existing STIP,
including the component metropolitan TIPs included in the STIP, beyond
two years by joint administrative action of the FHWA and the FTA. STIP
extensions are not allowed for metropolitan TIP portions of the STIP
which are in nonattainment or maintenance areas as well as for those
portions of the STIP containing projects in rural nonattainment or
maintenance areas.
Statewide transportation plan means the official statewide,
intermodal transportation plan that is developed through the statewide
transportation planning process pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135.
TIP update means the periodic re-examination and revision of TIP
contents, including, but not limited to, non-exempt projects, on a
scheduled basis, normally at least every two years. The addition or
deletion of a non-exempt project or phase of a non-exempt project to a
TIP shall be based on a comprehensive update of the TIP.
Transportation control measure means any measure that is
specifically identified and committed to in the applicable
implementation plan that is either one of the types listed in section
108 of the CAA, or any other measure for the purpose of reducing
emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation
sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion
conditions. Notwithstanding the above, vehicle technology-based, fuel-
based, and maintenance-based measures which control the emissions from
vehicles under fixed traffic conditions are not TCMs.
Transportation improvement program (TIP) means a staged, multi-
year, intermodal program of transportation projects in the metropolitan
planning area which is consistent with the metropolitan transportation
plan.
Transportation Management Area (TMA) means an urbanized area with a
population over 200,000 (as determined by the latest decennial census)
or other area when TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the
MPO (or affected local officials), and officially designated by the
Administrators of the FHWA and the FTA. The TMA designation applies to
the entire metropolitan planning area(s).
Transportation plan update means the periodic review, revision or
reaffirmation of plan content, normally every three years in
nonattainment and maintenance areas and five years in attainment areas
or the update period for State plans as determined by the State.
Twenty year planning horizon means a forecast period covering
twenty years from the date of plan adoption, reaffirmation or
modification in attainment areas and subsequent Federal conformity
finding at the time of adoption in nonattainment and maintenance areas.
The plan must reflect the most recent planning assumptions for current
and future population, travel, land use, congestion, employment,
economic activity and other related statistical measures for the
metropolitan planning area.
Urbanized area (UZA) means a geographic area with a population of
at least 50,000 as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census based on the latest decennial census or special
census as appropriate.
User of public transit means any person or group representing such
persons who use mass transportation open to the public other than taxis
and other privately operated vehicles.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming
Sec. 1410.200 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement 23 U.S.C. 135, which
requires each State to carry out a transportation planning process that
shall be continuing, cooperative, and
[[Page 33944]]
comprehensive to the degree appropriate, based on the complexity of the
transportation problems to be addressed. The transportation planning
process shall be intermodal and shall develop a statewide
transportation plan and transportation improvement program for all
areas of the State, including those areas subject to the requirements
of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5305. The plan and program shall
facilitate the development and integrated management and operation of
safe transportation systems and facilities (including pedestrian
walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as
an intermodal transportation system for the State and an integral part
of an intermodal transportation system for the United States. The
intermodal transportation system shall provide for safe, efficient,
economic movement of people and goods in all areas of the State and
foster economic growth and development while minimizing transportation-
related fuel consumption and air pollution.
Sec. 1410.202 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to States and any
other agencies/organizations, such as MPOs, transit operators and air
quality agencies, that are responsible for satisfying these
requirements for transportation planning, programming and project
development throughout the State pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135.
Sec. 1410.204 Definitions.
Except as otherwise provided in subpart A of this part, terms
defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) are used in this part as so defined.
Sec. 1410.206 Statewide transportation planning process basic
requirements.
(a) The statewide transportation planning process shall include, as
a minimum, the following:
(1) Data collection and analysis;
(2) Consideration of factors contained in Sec. 1410.208;
(3) Coordination of activities as noted in Sec. 1410.210;
(4) Development of a statewide transportation plan for all areas of
the State that considers a range of transportation options designed to
meet the transportation needs (e.g., passenger, freight, safety, etc.)
of the State including all modes and their connections;
(5) Development of a statewide transportation improvement program
(STIP) for all areas of the State; and
(6) Various processes to accomplish data collection and analyses
essential for an effective transportation planning process, including a
process to assure that, no person shall, on the grounds of race, color,
sex, national origin, age, or physical handicap, be excluded from
participation in, be denied benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation. These assurances
shall be demonstrated through the following:
(i) An assessment covering the State, including at a minimum the
following:
(A) A geographic and demographic profile of the State that
identifies the low-income and minority, and where appropriate, elderly
and persons with disabilities, components of this profile;
(B) The transportation services available to or planned for these
segments of the State population;
(C) Any disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects,
including interrelated social and economic effects, consistent with the
provisions of Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 3 CFR, 1995 comp., p.
859) as implemented through US DOT Order 5610.2 and FHWA Order 6640.23;
\1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOT order 5610.2 and FHWA order 6640.23 are available for
inspection and copying from DOT headquarters and field offices as
prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D) Any denial of or a reduction in benefits;
(ii) Consideration of comments received during public involvement
efforts (consistent with the provisions of Sec. 1410.212(b)) to ensure
that expressed concerns of the elderly, minority individuals and
persons with disabilities, have been addressed during plan and program
decision making;
(iii) Identification of prior and planned efforts to address any
disproportionately high and adverse effects that are found;
(iv) The results of paragraphs (a)(5)(i), (ii) and (iii) of this
section will be documented in a manner to permit public review during
appropriate project development activities;
(v) The State may rely on information provided by a metropolitan
planning organization for those segments of the population in
metropolitan planning areas of the State; and
(vi) In accordance with Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2,
and FHWA Order 6640.23, nothing in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (vi) of
this section are intended to nor shall they create any right to
judicial review of any action taken by the agency, its officers or its
recipients taken under this part to comply with such Orders.
(b) [Reserved].
Sec. 1410.208 Consideration of statewide transportation planning
factors.
(a) Each statewide transportation planning process shall provide
for consideration of projects and strategies that will:
(1) Support the economic vitality of the United States, the States,
and metropolitan areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness,
productivity and efficiency;
(2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system
for motorized and nonmotorized users;
(3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to
people and for freight;
(4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy
conservation, and improve quality of life;
(5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation
system, across and between modes throughout the State, for people and
freight;
(6) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
(7) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation
system.
(b) In addition, in carrying out statewide transportation planning,
the State shall consider, at a minimum, the following and other factors
and issues that the planning process participants might identify which
are important considerations within the statewide transportation
planning process:
(1) With respect to nonmetropolitan areas, the concerns of local
elected officials representing units of general purpose local
government; and
(2) The concerns of Indian Tribal Governments and Federal land
management agencies that have jurisdiction over land within the
boundaries of the State.
Sec. 1410.210 Coordination of planning process activities.
(a) The statewide transportation planning process shall be carried
out in coordination with adjacent States, adjacent countries as
appropriate at the international borders, and with the metropolitan
planning process required by subpart C of this part.
(b) The statewide transportation planning process shall be
coordinated with air quality planning and provide for appropriate
conformity analyses to the extent required by the Clean Air Act (40
U.S.C. 175 and 176). The State shall carry out its responsibilities for
the development of the transportation portion of the State
Implementation Plan to the extent required by the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7504), as appropriate within the statewide transportation
planning process.
[[Page 33945]]
(c) Development of transportation plans, programs and planning
activities shall be coordinated with related planning activities being
carried out outside of metropolitan planning areas.
(d) The statewide transportation planning process shall provide a
forum for coordinating data collection and analyses to support,
planning, programming and project development decisions.
(e) The degree of coordination shall be based on the scale and
complexity of many issues including transportation problems, safety
concerns, land use, employment, economic, environmental, and housing
and community development objectives, and other circumstances statewide
or in subareas within the State.
Sec. 1410.212 Participation by interested parties.
(a) Non-metropolitan local official participation.
(1) The State shall have a documented process for consultation with
local officials in non-metropolitan areas within the continuing,
cooperative and comprehensive planning process for development of the
statewide transportation plan and the statewide transportation
improvement program. The process shall be documented and cooperatively
developed by both the State and nonmetropolitan local officials.
(2) The process for participation of nonmetropolitan local
officials shall not be reviewed or approved by the FHWA and the FTA.
However, local official participation will be among the issues
considered by the FHWA and the FTA in making the transportation
planning finding called for in Sec. 1410.222(b).
(b) Public involvement.
(1) Public involvement processes shall be open and proactive by
providing complete information, timely public notice, full public
access to key decisions, and opportunities for early and continuing
involvement.
(2) To satisfy these objectives public involvement processes shall
provide for:
(i) Early and continuing public involvement opportunities
throughout the transportation planning and programming process; and
(ii) Timely information about transportation issues and processes
to citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of
transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation,
freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services,
representatives of users of public transit, and other interested
parties and segments of the community affected by transportation plans,
programs, and projects;
(iii) Reasonable public access to technical and policy information
used in the development of the plan and STIP;
(iv) Adequate public notice of public involvement activities and
time for public review and comment at key decision points, including,
but not limited, to action on the plan and STIP;
(v) A process for demonstrating explicit consideration and response
to public input during the planning and program development process,
including responses to input received from persons with disabilities
and minority, elderly, and low-income populations;
(vi) A process for seeking out and considering the needs of those
traditionally under served by existing transportation systems,
including, but not limited to, low-income and minority populations
which may face challenges accessing employment and other amenities;
(vii) Periodic review of the effectiveness of the public
involvement process to ensure that the process provides full and open
access to all and revision of the process as necessary, with specific
attention to the effectiveness of efforts to engage persons with
disabilities, minority individuals, the elderly and low-income
populations.
(3) Public involvement activities carried out in a metropolitan
area in response to metropolitan planning requirements in
Sec. 1410.322(c) or Sec. 1410.324(c) may by agreement of the State and
the MPO satisfy the requirements of this section.
(4) During initial development and major revisions of the statewide
transportation plan required under Sec. 1410.214, the State shall
provide citizens, affected public agencies and jurisdictions,
representatives of transportation agency employees, private and public
providers of transportation, representatives of users of public
transit, freight shippers providers of freight transportation services
and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
proposed plan. The proposed plan shall be published, with reasonable
notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily available
for public review and comment. Likewise, the official statewide
transportation plan (see Sec. 1410.214(d)) shall be published, with
reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily
available for public information.
(5) During development and major revision of the statewide
transportation improvement program required under Sec. 1410.216, the
Governor shall provide citizens, affected public agencies and
jurisdictions, representatives of transportation agency employees,
private and public providers of transportation, representatives of
users of public transit, freight shippers, providers of freight
transportation services and other interested parties, a reasonable
opportunity for review and comment on the proposed program. The
proposed program shall be published, with reasonable notification of
its availability, or otherwise made readily available for public review
and comment. The approved program (see Sec. 1410.222(b)) if it differs
significantly from the proposed program, shall be published, with
reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily
available for public information.
(6) The time provided for public review and comment for minor
revisions to the statewide transportation plan or statewide
transportation improvement program shall be determined by the State and
local officials based on the complexity of the revisions.
(7) The State shall, as appropriate, provide for public comment on
existing and proposed procedures for public involvement throughout the
statewide transportation planning and programming process. As a
minimum, the State shall publish procedures and allow 45 days for
public review and written comment before the procedures and any major
revisions to existing procedures are adopted.
(c) Federal agency and other government participation. The
transportation planning process shall allow for participation of other
governments and agencies, particularly Indian Tribal Governments and
Federal lands managing agencies. The process for consulting with Indian
Tribal Governments and Federal lands managing agencies shall be
cooperatively developed and documented by both the State and the Indian
Tribal Government(s) or the respective Federal lands managing agency.
(d) State air quality agency and other state agency participation.
The transportation planning process shall allow for participation of
the State air quality agency and other state agencies as determined
appropriate by the planning process participants.
(e) Participation and the planning finding. The processes for
participation of interested parties will be considered by the FHWA and
the FTA as they make the planning finding required in Sec. 1410.222(b)
to assure that full and
[[Page 33946]]
open access is provided to the decision making process.
Sec. 1410.214 Content and development of statewide transportation
plan.
(a) The State shall develop a statewide transportation plan that
shall:
(1) Cover all areas of the State;
(2) Be intermodal (including consideration and provision, as
applicable, of elements and connections of and between transit, non-
motorized, rail, commercial motor vehicle, waterway, and aviation
facilities, particularly with respect to intercity travel) and
statewide in scope in order to facilitate the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods;
(3) Address the development of intelligent transportation systems
(ITS) investment strategies, including an ITS Integration Strategy
consistent with the provisions of Sec. 1410.322(b)(11), to support the
development of integrated technology based investments, including
metropolitan and non-metropolitan investments. The scope of the
integration strategy shall be appropriate to the scale of investment
anticipated for ITS during the life of the plan and shall address the
level of resources and staging of planned investments. ITS Integration
Strategy shall be developed and documented no later than the first
update of the transportation plan or STIP that occurs two years
following the effective date of the final rule;
(4) Be reasonably consistent in time horizon among its elements,
but cover a forecast period of at least 20 years;
(5) Provide for development and integrated management and operation
of bicycle and pedestrian transportation system and facilities which
are appropriately interconnected with other modes;
(6) Be coordinated with the metropolitan transportation plans
required under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303;
(7) Reference, summarize or contain any applicable short range
planning studies, strategic planning and/or policy studies,
transportation needs studies, management system reports and any
statements of policies, goals and objectives regarding issues, such as,
transportation, economic development, housing, social and environmental
effects, energy, etc., that were significant to development of the
plan;
(8) Reference, summarize or contain information on the availability
of financial (including as appropriate an optional financial plan
consistent with 23 CFR 1410.214(d)) and other resources needed to carry
out the plan; and
(9) Contain strategies that ensure timely compliance with the
applicable SIP.
(b) The following entities shall be involved in the development of
the statewide transportation plan:
(1) MPOs shall be involved on a cooperation basis for the portions
of the plan affecting metropolitan planning areas;
(2) Indian Tribal Governments and the Secretary of the Interior
shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan
affecting areas of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal
Government;
(3) Federal lands managing agencies shall be involved on a
consultation basis for the portions of the program affecting areas of
the State under their jurisdiction;
(4) Affected local officials with responsibility for transportation
shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan
in nonmetropolitan areas of the State.
(c) In developing the statewide transportation plan, the State
shall:
(1) Provide for participation by interested parties as required
under Sec. 1410.212;
(2) Provide for consideration and analysis as appropriate of
specified factors as required under Sec. 1410.208;
(3) Provide for coordination as required under Sec. 1410.210; and
(4) Identify transportation strategies necessary to efficiently
serve the mobility needs of people.
(d) The statewide transportation plan may include a financial plan
that:
(1) Demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be
implemented;
(2) Indicates resources from public and private sources that are
reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan;
(3) Recommends any additional financing strategies for needed
projects and programs;
(4) Might include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects
that would be included in the adopted transportation plan if reasonable
additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were
available. The State is not required to select any project from the
illustrative list for implementation, and projects on the illustrative
list cannot be advanced to implementation without an action by the
Secretary of Transportation on the STIP.
(e) The State shall provide and carry out a mechanism to adopt the
plan as the official statewide transportation plan.
(f) The plan shall be continually evaluated and periodically
updated, as appropriate, using the procedures in this section for
development and establishment of the plan.
Sec. 1410.216 Content and development of statewide transportation
improvement program (STIP).
(a) Each State shall develop a statewide transportation improvement
program for all areas of the State. In case of difficulties in
developing the STIP portion for a particular area, e.g., metropolitan
area, Indian Tribal lands, etc., a partial STIP covering the rest of
the State may be developed. The portion of the STIP in a metropolitan
planning area (the metropolitan TIP developed pursuant to subpart C of
this part) shall be developed in cooperation with the MPO. To assist
metropolitan TIP development the State, the MPO and the transit
operator will cooperatively develop timely estimates of available
Federal and State funds which are to be utilized in developing the
metropolitan TIP. Metropolitan planning area TIPs shall be included
without modification in the STIP, directly or by reference, once
approved by the MPO and the Governor and after needed conformity
findings are made. Metropolitan TIPs in nonattainment and maintenance
areas are subject to the FHWA and the FTA conformity findings before
their inclusion in the STIP. In nonattainment and maintenance areas
outside metropolitan planning areas, Federal findings of conformity
must be made prior to placing projects in the STIP. The State shall
notify the appropriate MPO, local jurisdictions, Federal land
management agency, Indian Tribal Government, etc., when a TIP including
projects under the jurisdiction of the agency has been included in the
STIP. All title 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 fund recipients will
share information as projects in the STIP are implemented. The Governor
shall provide for participation of interested parties in development of
the STIP as required by Sec. 1410.212.
(b) The following entities shall be involved in the development of
the statewide transportation improvement program:
(1) MPOs shall be involved on a cooperation basis for the portions
of the program affecting metropolitan planning areas;
(2) Indian Tribal Governments and the Secretary of the Interior
shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the
program affecting areas of the State under the jurisdiction of an
Indian Tribal Government;
(3) Federal lands managing agencies shall be involved on a
consultation basis for the portions of the program affecting
[[Page 33947]]
areas of the State under their jurisdiction; and
(4) Affected local officials with responsibility for transportation
shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the
program in nonmetropolitan areas of the State.
(c) The STIP shall:
(1) Include a list of priority transportation projects proposed to
be carried out in the first three years of the STIP. Since each TIP is
approved by the Governor, the TIP priorities will dictate STIP
priorities for each individual metropolitan area. As a minimum, the
lists shall group the projects that are to be undertaken in each of the
years, e.g., year 1, year 2, year 3;
(2) Cover a period of not less than three years, but may at State
discretion cover a longer period. If the STIP covers more than three
years, the projects in the additional years will be considered by the
FHWA and the FTA only as informational;
(3) Contain only projects consistent with the statewide plan
developed under Sec. 1410.214;
(4) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, contain only
transportation projects that have been found to conform, or which come
from programs that conform, in accordance with the requirements
contained in the EPA conformity regulation 40 CFR parts 51 and 93;
(5) Contain a project, or an identified phase of a project, only if
full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the
project within the time period contemplated for completion of the
project. The STIP financial constraint will be demonstrated and
maintained by year and the STIP shall include sufficient financial
information to demonstrate which projects are to be implemented using
current revenues and which projects are to be implemented using
proposed revenue sources while the system as a whole is being
adequately operated and maintained. In nonattainment and maintenance
areas, projects included in the first two years of the current STIP/TIP
shall be limited to those for which funds are available or committed.
In the case of proposed funding sources, strategies for ensuring their
availability shall be identified, preferably in an optional financial
plan consistent with Sec. 1410.216(f);
(6) Contain all capital and non-capital transportation projects
(including transportation enhancements, safety, Federal lands highways
projects, trails projects, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle
transportation facilities), or identified phases of transportation
projects, proposed for funding under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and/or title
23, U.S.C., excluding:
(i) Metropolitan planning projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(f)
and 49 U.S.C. 5303;
(ii) State planning and research projects funded under 23 U.S.C.
307(c)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5313(b)(except those funded with national
highway system (NHS), surface transportation program (STP) and minimum
guarantee funds that the State and MPO for a metropolitan area agree
should be in the TIP and consequently must be in the STIP); and
(iii) Emergency relief projects (except those involving substantial
functional, locational or capacity changes);
(7) Contain all regionally significant transportation projects
requiring an action by the FHWA or the FTA whether or not the projects
are to be funded with title 23, U.S.C., or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funds,
and/or selected funds administered by the Federal Railroad
Administration, e.g., addition of an interchange to the Interstate
System with State, local and/or private funds, high priority or
demonstration projects not funded under title 23, U.S.C., or 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 53. (The STIP should include all regionally significant
transportation projects proposed to be funded with Federal funds other
than those administered by the FHWA or the FTA. It should also include,
for information purposes, if appropriate and cited in any TIPs, all
regionally significant projects, to be funded with non-Federal funds);
(8) Identify ITS projects funded with highway trust fund monies,
including as appropriate an integration strategy, consistent with the
statewide plan. Where ITS projects are identified that fit the
provisions of Sec. 1410.322(b)(11), an agreement shall exist between
participating agencies in the project area that will govern their
implementation.
(9) Include for each project or phase the following:
(i) Sufficient descriptive material (i.e., type of work, termini,
length, etc.) to identify the project or phase;
(ii) Estimated total project cost, which may extend beyond the
three years of the STIP;
(iii) The amount of funds proposed to be obligated during each
program year for the project or phase;
(iv) For the first year, the proposed category of Federal funds and
source(s) of non-Federal funds for the project or phase;
(v) For the second and third years, the likely category of Federal
funds and sources of non-Federal funds for the project or phase;
(vi) Identification of the agencies responsible for carrying out
the project or phase; and
(10) For non-metropolitan areas, include in the first year only
those projects which have been selected in accordance with the
requirements in Sec. 1410.224(c).
(d) Projects that are not considered to be of appropriate scale for
individual identification in a given program year may be grouped by
function, work type, and/or geographic area using the applicable
classifications under 23 CFR 1420.311(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part 93.
In addition, projects funded under chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. may be
grouped by funding category and shown as one line item, unless they are
determined to be regionally significant.
(e) Projects in any of the first three years of the STIP may be
moved to any other of the first three years of the STIP subject to the
requirements of Sec. 1410.224.
(f) The statewide transportation improvement program may include a
financial plan that:
(1) Demonstrates how the adopted transportation improvement program
can be implemented;
(2) Indicates resources from public and private sources that are
reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the program;
(3) Recommends any additional financing strategies for needed
projects and programs;
(4) Might include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects
that would be included in the transportation improvement program if
reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the
financial plan were available. The State is not required to select any
project from the illustrative list for implementation, and projects on
the illustrative list cannot be advanced to implementation without an
action by the Secretary on the STIP.
(g) The STIP may be modified at any time under procedures agreed to
by the cooperating parties consistent with the procedures established
in this section (for STIP development), in Sec. 1410.212 (for
interested party participation) and in Sec. 1410.222 (for the FHWA and
the FTA approval).
Sec. 1410.218 Relation of planning and project development processes.
(a) Depending upon its character and the level of detail desired as
determined by the planning process participants, the statewide planning
process products and analyses can be utilized as input to subsequent
project development. The process described in Sec. 1410.318 relating
planning and project development may
[[Page 33948]]
be utilized at the discretion of the statewide transportation planning
process participants in non-metropolitan areas. Analyses performed
within the statewide planning process to support project development
lead to a statement of purpose and need for regionally significant
proposed transportation investments.
(b) The results of analyses conducted under paragraph (a) of this
section, at the option of the planning participants, may:
(1) Be documented as part of the plan development record for
consideration in subsequent project development actions;
(2) Serve as input to the NEPA process required under 23 CFR 1420;
(3) Provide a basis, in part, for project level decision making;
and
(4) Be proposed for consideration as support for actions and
decisions by federal agencies other than US DOT;
(c) To the extent feasible, Federal, State, and local agencies with
subsequent project level responsibilities for investments included in a
transportation plan, shall be involved in planning analyses and studies
as a means to reduce subsequent project development analyses and
studies, support decisionmaking, and provide early identification of
key concerns for later consideration and analysis as needed. Where the
processes available under Sec. 1410.318(f) are invoked, the FHWA and
the FTA shall be consulted.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as requiring
formal NEPA review of or action on plans and TIPs.
(e) The FHWA and the FTA project level actions, including, but not
limited to issuance of a categorical exclusion, finding of no
significant impact or a final environmental impact statement under 23
CFR 1420, right of way acquisition (with the exception of hardship and
protective buying actions), interstate interchange approvals, high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) conversions, funding of ITS projects, project
conformity analyses and approval of final design and construction and
transit vehicle acquisition may not be completed unless the proposed
project action is included in a STIP which meets the requirements of
this subpart. None of these project level actions can occur in
nonattainment and maintenance areas unless the project conforms
according to the requirements of the EPA's conformity rule (40 CFR
parts 51 and 93).
Sec. 1410.220 Funding of planning process.
Funds provided under 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5307, 5309, 5311, and 5313(b)
and 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), 104(f), 105, and 505(a) may be used
to accomplish activities in this subpart.
Sec. 1410.222 Approvals, self-certification and findings.
(a) At least every two years, each State shall submit the entire
proposed STIP, and amendments as necessary, concurrently to the FHWA
and the FTA for joint approval. The State shall certify that the
transportation planning process is being carried out in accordance with
all applicable requirements of:
(1) 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, 49 U.S.C. 5303-5305 and 5323(k), and
this part;
(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2000d-1) and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 21 and 23 CFR part
230);
(3) Section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23
U.S.C. 324);
(4) The Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101);
and
(5) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794)
and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 35);
(6) Section 1101 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (Public Law 105-178) regarding the involvement of disadvantaged
business enterprises in the FHWA and the FTA funded projects (sec.
105(f), Public Law 97-424, 96 Stat. 2100; 49 CFR part 23);
(7) The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and U.S. DOT regulations ``Transportation for
Individuals with Disabilities'' (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38);
(8) The provisions of 49 CFR part 20 regarding restrictions on
influencing certain Federal activities;
(9) In States containing nonattainment and maintenance areas,
sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d)); and
(10) all other applicable provisions of Federal law.
(b) The FHWA and the FTA Administrators, in consultation with,
where applicable, Federal land managing agencies, will review the STIP
or amendment and jointly make a finding (based on self-certifications
made by the State and appropriate reviews established and conducted by
FTA and FHWA) as to the extent the projects in the STIP are based on a
planning process that meets or substantially meets the requirements of
title 23, U.S.C., 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and subparts A, B, and C of this
part.
(1) If, upon review, the FHWA and the FTA Administrators jointly
find that the planning process through which the STIP was developed
meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and these regulations
(including subpart C where a metropolitan TIP is involved), they will
unconditionally approve the STIP.
(2) If the FHWA and the FTA administrators jointly find that the
planning process through which the STIP was developed substantially
meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and these regulations
(including subpart C where a metropolitan TIP is involved), they will
act on the STIP or amendment as follows:
(i) Joint conditional approval of the STIP subject to certain
corrective actions being taken;
(ii) Joint conditional approval of the STIP as the basis for
approval of identified categories of projects; and/or
(iii) Under special circumstances, joint conditional approval of a
partial STIP covering only a portion of the State.
(3) If, upon review, the FHWA and the FTA Administrators jointly
find that the STIP or amendment does not substantially meet the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and this part for any identified
categories of projects, they will not approve the STIP or amendment.
(c) The joint approval period for a new STIP or amended STIP shall
not exceed two years. Where the State demonstrates, in writing, that
extenuating circumstances will delay the submittal of a new STIP or
amended STIP for approval, the FHWA and the FTA will consider and take
appropriate action on requests to extend the approval beyond two years
for all or part of the STIP for a limited period of time, not to exceed
180 days. Where the request involves projects in a metropolitan
planning area(s), the affected MPO(s) must concur in the request and if
the delay was due to the development and approval of the TIP, the
affected MPO(s) must provide supporting information, in writing, for
the request. If nonattainment and/or maintenance areas are involved, a
request for an extension cannot be granted.
(d) The FHWA and the FTA will notify the State of actions taken
under this section.
(e) Where necessary in order to maintain or establish operations,
the Federal Transit Administrator and/or the Federal Highway
Administrator may approve operating assistance for specific projects or
programs funded under 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 5311 even though the projects
or programs may not be included in an approved STIP.
Sec. 1410.224 Project selection.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. Sec. 1410.222(e) and 1410.216(c)(6),
only
[[Page 33949]]
projects included in the federally approved STIP shall be eligible for
funds administered by the FHWA or the FTA.
(b) In metropolitan planning areas, transportation projects
requiring 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funds administered by the
FHWA or the FTA shall be selected from the approved TIP/STIP in
accordance with procedures established pursuant to the project
selection portion of the metropolitan planning regulation in subpart C
of this part.
(c) Outside metropolitan planning areas, transportation projects
undertaken on the National Highway System with title 23 funds and under
the bridge and Interstate maintenance programs shall be selected from
the approved STIP by the State in consultation with the affected local
officials. Federal lands highway projects shall be selected from the
approved STIP in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204. Other transportation
projects undertaken with funds administered by the FHWA shall be
selected from the approved STIP by the State in cooperation with the
affected local officials, and projects undertaken with 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 53 funds shall be selected from the approved STIP by the State
in cooperation with the appropriate affected local officials and
transit operators.
(d) The projects in the first year of an approved STIP shall
constitute an ``agreed to'' list of projects for subsequent scheduling
and implementation. No further action under paragraphs (b) or (c) of
this section is required for the implementing agency to proceed with
these projects except that if appropriated Federal funds available are
significantly less than the authorized amounts, Sec. 1410.332(c)
provides for a revised list of ``agreed to'' projects to be developed
upon the request of the State, the MPO, or transit operators. If an
implementing agency wishes to proceed with a project in the second and
third year of the STIP, the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section or as agreed to by the parties under paragraph (e) of this
section must be used.
(e) Expedited procedures which provide for the advancement of
projects from the second or third years of the STIP may be used if
agreed to by all the parties involved in the selection process.
Sec. 1410.226 Applicability of NEPA to transportation planning and
programming.
Any decision by the Secretary concerning a transportation plan or
transportation improvement program developed through the processes
provided for in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 through 5305,
shall not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review under
NEPA.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
Sec. 1410.300 Purpose of planning process.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49
U.S.C. 5303-5306 which require that a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) be designated for each urbanized area (UZA) and that
the metropolitan area have a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive
transportation planning process that results in plans and programs that
consider all transportation modes and support metropolitan community
development and social goals. The transportation plan and program shall
facilitate the development, management and operation of an integrated,
intermodal transportation system that enables the safe, efficient,
economic movement of people and goods.
Sec. 1410.302 Organizations and processes affected by planning
requirements.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to agencies
responsible for satisfying the requirements of the transportation
planning, programming, and project development processes in
metropolitan planning areas pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134.
Sec. 1410.304 Definitions.
Except as otherwise provided in subpart A of this part, terms
defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302 are used in this part as
so defined.
Sec. 1410.306 What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization and how is
it created?
(a) Designations of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) made
after December 18, 1991, shall be by agreement among the Governor(s)
and units of general purpose local governments representing 75 percent
of the affected metropolitan population (including the central city or
cities as defined by the Bureau of the Census), or in accordance with
procedures established by applicable State or local law. A single
metropolitan planning organization, to the extent possible, shall be
designated to serve a metropolitan planning area containing:
(1) A single UZA, or
(2) Multiple UZAs that are contiguous with each other or located
within the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
(b) The designation or redesignation shall clearly identify the
policy body that is the forum for cooperative decision making that will
be taking the required approval actions as the MPO.
(c) To the extent possible, the MPO designated should be
established under specific State legislation, State enabling
legislation, or by interstate compact, and shall have authority to
carry out metropolitan transportation planning.
(d) Nothing in this subpart shall be deemed to prohibit an MPO from
utilizing the staff resources of other agencies to carry out selected
elements of the planning process.
(e) Existing MPO designations remain valid until a new MPO is
redesignated. Redesignation is accomplished by the Governor and local
units of government representing 75 percent of the population in the
area served by the existing MPO (the central city(ies) must be among
those desiring to revoke the MPO designation). If the Governor and
local officials decide to redesignate an existing MPO, but do not
formally revoke the existing MPO designation, the existing MPO
designation remains in effect until a new MPO is formally designated.
(f) Redesignation of an MPO in a multistate metropolitan area
requires the approval of the Governor of each State and local officials
representing 75 percent of the population in the entire metropolitan
planning area. The local officials in the central city(ies) must be
among those agreeing to the redesignation.
(g) Redesignation of an MPO covering more than one UZA requires the
approval of the Governor(s) and local officials representing 75 percent
of the population in the metropolitan planning area covered by the
current MPO. The local officials in the central city(ies) in each
urbanized area must be among those agreeing to the redesignation.
(h) The voting membership of an MPO policy body designated/
redesignated subsequent to December 18, 1991, and serving a TMA, must
include representation of local elected officials, officials of
agencies that administer or operate major modes or systems of
transportation, e.g., transit operators, sponsors of major local
airports, maritime ports, rail operators, etc. (including all
transportation agencies that were included in the MPO on June 1, 1991),
and appropriate State officials. Where agencies that operate other
major modes of transportation do not already have a voice on existing
MPOs, the MPOs (in cooperation with the States) are encouraged to
provide such agencies a voice in the decision making process, including
representation/membership
[[Page 33950]]
on the policy body and/or other appropriate committees. Further, where
appropriate, existing MPOs should increase the representation of local
elected officials on the policy board and other committees as a means
for encouraging their greater involvement in MPO processes. Adding such
representation to an MPO will not, in itself, constitute a
redesignation action.
(i) Where the metropolitan planning area boundary for a previously
designated MPO needs to be expanded, the membership on the MPO policy
body and other committees, should be reviewed to ensure that the added
area has appropriate representation.
(j) Adding membership (e.g., local elected officials and operators
of major modes or systems of transportation, or representatives of
newly urbanized areas) to the policy body or expansion of the
metropolitan planning area does not automatically require redesignation
of the MPO. This may be done without a formal redesignation. The
Governor and MPO shall review the previous MPO designation, State and
local law, MPO bylaws, etc., to determine if this can be accomplished
without a formal redesignation. If redesignation is considered
necessary, the existing MPO will remain in effect until a new MPO is
formally designated or the existing designation is formally revoked in
accordance with the procedures of this section.
Sec. 1410.308 Establishing the geographic boundaries for metropolitan
transportation planning areas.
(a) The metropolitan planning area boundary shall, as a minimum,
cover the UZA(s) and the contiguous geographic area(s) likely to become
urbanized within, at a minimum, the twenty year forecast period covered
by the transportation plan described in Sec. 1410.322.
(1) For existing MPOs, unless modified by agreement of the Governor
and the MPO, the planning area boundaries shall be those in existence
as of June 9, 1998. For MPOs designated after June 9, 1998, the
boundaries shall be those agreed to by the Governor and local officials
as indicated in Sec. 1410.306(a).
(2) The boundary may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical
area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the
Bureau of the Census.
(3) For new MPOs, the planning area boundary shall reflect
agreements between the MPO and the State DOT regarding the relationship
of the metropolitan planning area boundary to any nonattainment and
maintenance area within its designated limits or contiguous
nonattainment or maintenance area excluded from the boundary.
(b) The metropolitan planning area for a new UZA served by an
existing or new MPO shall be established in accordance with these
criteria. The current planning area boundaries for previously
designated UZAs shall be reviewed and modified if necessary to comply
with these criteria.
(c) In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section,
the planning areas currently in use for all transportation modes should
be reviewed before establishing the metropolitan planning area
boundary. Where appropriate, adjustments should be made to reflect the
most comprehensive boundary to foster an effective planning process
that ensures connectivity between modes and their operational
integration, and promotes efficient overall transportation investment
strategies in support of mobility and accessibility.
(d) Approval of metropolitan planning area boundaries by the FHWA
and/or the FTA is not required. However, metropolitan planning area
boundary maps must be submitted to the FHWA and the FTA after their
approval by the MPO and the Governor and be made publicly available.
(e) The STP funds suballocated to urbanized areas greater than
200,000 in population shall not be utilized for projects outside the
metropolitan planning area boundary.
Sec. 1410.310 Agreements among organizations involved in the planning
process.
(a) The responsibilities for cooperatively carrying out
transportation planning and programming shall be clearly identified in
an agreement or memorandum of understanding among the State(s),
operators of publicly owned mass transit, and the MPO.
(b) Where project development activities are conducted under the
planning process, they shall be documented in an agreement between the
MPO and the applicable project sponsor addressing, at a minimum, the
provisions of Sec. 1410.318.
(c) In nonattainment or maintenance areas, if the MPO is not
designated as the agency responsible for air quality planning under
section 174 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), there shall be an
agreement between the MPO and the designated agency describing their
respective roles and responsibilities for air quality related
transportation planning.
(d) Where the parties involved agree, the requirement for
agreements specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section
may be satisfied by including the responsibilities and procedures for
carrying out a cooperative process in the unified planning work program
or a prospectus.
(e) If the metropolitan planning area does not include the entire
nonattainment or maintenance area, there shall be an agreement among
the State department of transportation, State air quality agency,
affected local agencies, and the MPO describing the process for
cooperative planning and analysis of all projects outside the
metropolitan planning area but within the nonattainment or maintenance
area. The agreement must indicate how the total transportation related
emissions for the nonattainment or maintenance area, including areas
both within and outside the metropolitan planning area, will be treated
for the purposes of determining conformity in accordance with the U.S.
EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). The agreement shall
address policy mechanisms for resolving conflicts concerning
transportation related emissions that may arise between the
metropolitan planning area and the portion of the nonattainment or
maintenance area outside the metropolitan planning area. Proposals to
exclude a portion of the nonattainment or maintenance area from the
planning area boundary shall be coordinated with the FHWA, the FTA, the
EPA, and the State air quality agency before a final boundary decision
is made for the metropolitan planning area.
(f) Where more than one MPO has authority within a metropolitan
planning area, a nonattainment or maintenance area, and/or in the case
of adjoining metropolitan planning areas, there shall be an agreement
between the State department(s) of transportation and the MPOs
describing how the processes and projects will be coordinated to assure
the development of an overall transportation plan for the planning
area(s). In metropolitan planning areas that are nonattainment or
maintenance areas, the agreement shall include State and local air
quality agencies, and be consistent with the provisions of
Sec. 1410.312(c). The agreement shall address policy mechanisms for
resolving potential conflicts that may arise between the MPOs, e.g.,
issues related to the exclusion of a portion of the nonattainment area
from the planning area boundary.
(g) Where the planning process develops an ITS Integration Strategy
[[Page 33951]]
under the provisions of Sec. 1410.322(b)(11), there shall be an
agreement among the MPO, the State DOT, the transit operator and other
agencies as described in the ITS Integration Strategy. This agreement
shall address policy and operational issues that will affect the
successful implementation of the ITS Integration Strategy, including at
a minimum ITS project interoperability, utilization of ITS related
standards, and the routine operation of the projects identified in the
ITS Integration Strategy;
(h) To the extent possible, a single cooperative agreement
containing the understandings required by paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section among the State(s), the MPO, publicly owned operators of
mass transportation services, and air quality agencies may be
developed. Where the participating planning organizations desire, they
may further consolidate agreements required by paragraphs (d) through
(g) of this section with those addressed in paragraphs (a) through (c)
of this section.
(i) For all requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of
this section, existing agreements shall be reviewed by the MPO, the
State DOT and the transit operator for compliance and reaffirmed or
modified as necessary to ensure participation by all appropriate modes.
Sec. 1410.312 Planning process organizational relationships.
(a) The MPO in cooperation with the State and with operators of
publicly owned transit services shall be responsible for carrying out
the metropolitan transportation planning process. The MPO, the State
and transit operator(s) shall cooperatively determine their mutual
responsibilities in the conduct of the planning process. They shall
cooperatively develop the unified planning work program, transportation
plan, and transportation improvement program specified in
Secs. 1410.314 through 1410.332. In addition, the development of the
plan and TIP shall be coordinated with other providers of
transportation, e.g., sponsors of regional airports, maritime port
operators, rail freight operators, and where appropriate, planning
agencies in Mexico and/or Canada.
(b) The MPO shall approve the metropolitan transportation plan,
plan amendments and plan updates. The MPO and the Governor shall
approve the metropolitan transportation improvement program and any
amendments.
(c) In nonattainment or maintenance areas:
(1) The transportation and air quality planning processes shall be
coordinated;
(2) TCMs proposed for FHWA and FTA funding and/or approvals shall
come from a plan and TIP that fully meet the requirements of this
subpart (new TCMs authorized to proceed during a conformity lapse will
meet the requirements of this subpart if they are included in an
interim plan and program and approved into a SIP with emission
reduction benefits); and
(3) MPOs shall participate in the development of motor vehicle
emissions budgets, inventories and other transportation related air
quality activities undertaken to develop SIPs to the extent required by
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504).
(d) In nonattainment or maintenance areas for transportation
related pollutants, the MPO shall not approve any transportation plan
or program which does not conform with the SIP, as determined in
accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and
93).
(e) If more than one MPO has authority in a metropolitan planning
area (including multi-State metropolitan planning areas) or in an area
which is designated as nonattainment or maintenance for transportation
related pollutants, the MPOs and the Governor(s) shall cooperatively
establish the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area (addressing
the required twenty year planning horizon and relationship to the
nonattainment or maintenance areas) and the respective jurisdictional
responsibilities of each MPO. The MPOs shall consult with each other
and the State(s) to assure that plans and transportation improvement
programs are coordinated for the entire metropolitan planning area,
including, but not limited to, coordinated data collection, analysis
and plan development. Alternatively, a single plan and/or TIP for the
entire metropolitan area may be developed jointly by the MPOs in
cooperation with their planning partners. Coordination efforts shall be
documented in subsequent transmittals of the unified planning work
program (UPWP) and various planning products (the plan, TIP, etc.) to
the State(s), the FHWA, and the FTA.
(f) The FTA and the FHWA must designate as transportation
management areas all UZAs over 200,000 population as determined by the
most recent decennial census. The TMAs so designated and those
designated subsequently by the FTA and the FHWA (including those
designated upon request of the MPO and the Governor) must comply with
the special requirements applicable to such areas regarding congestion
management systems, project selection, and planning certification. The
TMA designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area
boundary. If a metropolitan planning area encompasses a TMA and other
UZA(s), the designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning
area regardless of the population of constituent UZAs.
(g) In TMAs, the congestion management system shall be developed as
part of the metropolitan transportation planning process.
(h) The State shall cooperatively participate in the development of
metropolitan transportation plans and metropolitan plans shall be
coordinated with the statewide transportation plan. The relationship of
the statewide transportation plan and the metropolitan plan is
specified in subpart B of this part.
(i) Where a metropolitan planning area includes Federal public
lands and/or Indian Tribal lands, the affected Federal agencies and
Indian Tribal Governments shall be consulted in the development of
transportation plans and programs.
(j) Discretionary grants awarded by the FHWA and the FTA under
section 1221 of the TEA-21 (23 U.S.C. 101 note) (Transportation and
Community and System Preservation Pilot Program), sections 1118 and
1119 of the TEA-21 (Borders and Corridors) and section 3037 (49 U.S.C.
5309 note) (Access to Jobs) shall be included in the appropriate
metropolitan plan and program, except where these funds are utilized
for planning and/or research activities. Applicants shall coordinate
with the appropriate MPO to ensure that such projects are consistent
with the provisions of this subpart. Where planning and research
activities are funded under the Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Pilot Program or the Borders and Corridors Program, they
shall be identified in the Unified Planning Work Program as identified
at Sec. 1410.314.
Sec. 1410.314 Planning tasks and unified work program.
(a) The MPO(s) in cooperation with the State and operators of
publicly owned transit shall develop unified planning work programs
(UPWPs) that meet the requirements of 23 CFR part 420, subpart A, and:
(1) Discuss the planning priorities facing the metropolitan
planning area and describe all metropolitan transportation and
transportation-related air quality planning activities
[[Page 33952]]
anticipated within the area during the next one or two year period,
regardless of funding sources or agencies conducting activities, in
sufficient detail to indicate who will perform the work, the schedule
for completing it and the products that will be produced; and
(2) Document planning activities to be performed with funds
provided under title 23 and Chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C.
(b) Arrangements may be made with the FHWA and the FTA to combine
the UPWP requirements with the work program for other Federal sources
of planning funds.
(c) In areas not designated as TMAs and which are in attainment for
air quality purposes, the MPO in cooperation with the State and transit
operator(s), with the approval of the FHWA and the FTA, may prepare a
simplified statement of work, in lieu of a UPWP, that describes who
will perform the work and the work that will be accomplished using
Federal funds (administered under title 23 U.S.C. and Chapter 53 of
title 49 U.S.C. If a simplified statement of work is used, it may be
submitted as part of the statewide planning work program, in accordance
with 23 CFR part 420.
(d) MPOs, which include non-attainment or maintenance areas, should
consult with the US EPA and state/local air agencies in the development
of their UPWP regarding appropriate tasks to support attainment of air
quality standards.
Sec. 1410.316 Transportation planning process and plan development.
(a) Each metropolitan planning process shall provide for
consideration of projects and strategies that will:
(1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan planning
area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and
efficiency;
(2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system
for motorized and non-motorized users;
(3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to
people and for freight;
(4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy
conservation, and improve quality of life;
(5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation
system, across and between modes, for people and freight;
(6) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
(7) Emphasize the efficient preservation of the existing
transportation system.
(b) In addition, the metropolitan transportation planning process
shall develop and adopt a proactive public involvement process that
provides complete information, timely public notice, full public access
to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the
public in developing plans and TIPs. To attain these objectives the
process as developed shall meet the requirements and criteria as
follows:
(1) Require a minimum public comment period of 45 days before the
public involvement process is initially adopted or revised;
(2) Provide timely information about transportation issues and
processes (including but not limited to initiation of plan and TIP
updates, revisions and/or other modifications and the general structure
of the planning process) to citizens, affected public agencies,
representatives of transportation agency employees, users of public
transit, freight shippers, private providers of transportation, other
interested parties and segments of the community affected by
transportation plans, programs and projects (including but not limited
to central city and other local jurisdiction concerns);
(3) Provide reasonable public access to technical and policy
information used in the development of plans and TIPs and open public
meetings where matters related to the Federal-aid highway and transit
programs are being considered;
(4) Require adequate public notice of public involvement activities
and time for public review and comment at key decision points,
including, but not limited to, approval of plans and TIPs (in
nonattainment areas classified as serious and above, the comment period
shall be at least 30 days for the plan, TIP and major amendment(s));
(5) Demonstrate explicit consideration, recognition and feedback to
public input received during the planning and program development
processes, including responses to input received from minority,
elderly, low-income, and persons with disabilities populations;
(6) Seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally under
served by existing transportation systems, including, but not limited
to, low-income, the elderly, persons with disabilities and minority
populations;
(7) When comments are received on the draft transportation plan or
TIP (including the financial plan) as a result of the public
involvement process or the interagency consultation process required
under the U.S. EPA conformity regulations, a summary, analysis, and
report on the disposition of comments shall be made part of the final
plan and TIP;
(8) If the final transportation plan or TIP differs significantly
from the one which was made available for public comment by the MPO and
raises new material issues which interested parties could not
reasonably have foreseen from the public involvement efforts, an
additional opportunity for public comment on the revised plan or TIP
shall be made available;
(9) Public involvement processes shall be periodically reviewed by
the MPO in terms of their effectiveness in assuring that the process
provides full and open access to all, with specific attention to the
effectiveness of efforts to engage persons with disabilities, minority
individuals, the elderly and low income populations;
(10) These procedures will be reviewed by the FHWA and the FTA
during certification reviews for TMAs, and as otherwise necessary for
all MPOs, to assure that full and open access is provided to MPO
decision making processes;
(11) Metropolitan public involvement processes shall be coordinated
with statewide public involvement processes and with project
development public involvement processes wherever possible to enhance
public consideration of the issues, plans, and programs and reduce
redundancies and costs.
(c) Transportation plan development and plans shall be consistent
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2000d-1) and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 21 and 23 CFR part
230); section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C.
324); the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat.
327, as amended) and implementing regulations (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and
38); section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and
implementing regulations (49 CFR part 35), which ensure that no person
shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, age, or
physical handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal assistance from the United States
Department of Transportation. Consistency shall be demonstrated
through:
(1) An assessment covering the entire metropolitan planning area,
including at a minimum the following:
(i) A geographic and demographic profile of the metropolitan
planning
[[Page 33953]]
area that identifies the low-income and minority, and where
appropriate, the elderly and persons with disabilities components of
this profile,
(ii) The transportation services available to and planned for these
segments of the metropolitan planning area's population, and
(iii) Any disproportionately high and adverse environmental
impacts, including interrelated social and economic impacts, affecting
these populations, consistent with the provisions of Executive Order
12898 as implemented through U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 and FHWA Order
6640.23. Adverse effects can include a denial of or a reduction in
benefits;
(2) Consideration of comments received during public involvement
efforts (consistent with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section to ensure that expressed concerns of the elderly, low-income
individuals, minority individuals and persons with disabilities, have
been addressed during plan and program decision making;
(3) Identification of prior and planned efforts to address any
disproportionately high and adverse effects that are found;
(4) The results of paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of this section
will be documented in a manner to permit public review during
appropriate project development activities. In accordance with
Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2, and FHWA Order 6640.23,
nothing in this subpart is intended to nor shall create any right to
judicial review of any action taken by the agencies, their officers or
recipients under this subpart to comply with such orders.
(d) The transportation planning process shall identify actions
necessary to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990,
U.S. DOT regulations ``Transportation for Individuals With
Disabilities'' (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38) and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and implementing regulations (49 CFR part
35).
(e) The transportation plan development process shall provide for
the involvement of traffic, ridesharing, parking, transportation safety
and enforcement agencies; commuter rail operators; airport and port
authorities; toll authorities; appropriate private transportation
providers and where appropriate city officials; freight shippers;
transit users.
(f) The transportation planning process shall provide for the
involvement of local, State, and Federal environmental resource and
permit agencies as appropriate.
(g) The transportation planning process shall provide for the
involvement of Indian Tribal Governments and the Secretary of Interior
on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan affecting areas
under the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal Government.
(h) Simplified planning procedures may be proposed in non-TMAs
which are in attainment for air quality purposes. The FHWA and the FTA
shall review the proposed procedures for consistency with the
requirements of this section.
(i) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include
preparation of technical and other reports to assure documentation of
the development, refinement, and update of the transportation plan. The
reports shall be reasonably available to interested parties, consistent
with paragraph (b) of this section.
(j) The metropolitan planning process should provide a forum to
coordinate all federally funded non-emergency transportation services
within the metropolitan planning area. Where coordination processes are
developed within the transportation planning process, at a minimum they
should address the planning and delivery of services supporting access
to jobs and reverse commute options, relying where feasible on existing
processes and procedures.
Sec. 1410.318 Relation of planning and project development processes.
(a) In order to coordinate and streamline the planning and NEPA
processes, the planning process, through the cooperation of the MPO,
the State DOT and the transit operator, shall provide the following to
the NEPA process:
(1) An identification of an initial statement of purpose and need
for transportation investments;
(2) Findings and conclusions regarding purpose and need,
identification and evaluation of alternatives studied in planning
activities (including but not limited to the relevant design concepts
and scope of the proposed action), and identification of the
alternative included in the plan;
(3) An identification of the planning documents that provide the
basis for paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section; and
(4) Formal expressions of policy support or comment by the planning
process participants on paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) The following sources of information shall be utilized to
satisfy paragraph (a) of this section at a level of detail agreed to by
the MPO, the State DOT, and the transit operator:
(1) Inventories of social, economic and environmental resources and
conditions;
(2) Analyses of economic, social and environmental consequences;
(3) Evaluation(s) of transportation benefits, other benefits,
costs, and consequences, at a geographic scale agreed to by the
planning participants, of alternatives, including but not limited to
the relevant design concepts and scope of the proposed action;
(4) Data and supporting analyses to facilitate funding related
decisions by Federal agencies where appropriate or required, including
but not limited to 49 CFR part 611.
(c) The products resulting from paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section shall be reviewed early in the NEPA process in accordance with
Sec. 1420.201 to determine their appropriate use.
(d) In order to streamline subsequent project development analyses
and studies, and promote better decision making, the FTA and the FHWA
strongly encourage all Federal, State, and local agencies with
subsequent project level responsibilities for investments included in a
transportation plan to do the following:
(1) Participate in planning analyses and studies to the extent
possible;
(2) Provide early identification of key concerns for later
consideration and analysis as needed; and
(3) Utilize the sources of information identified in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(e) The analyses conducted under paragraph (b)(3) of this section
may serve as the alternatives analysis required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)
for new fixed guideway transit systems and extensions and the
information required under 49 CFR part 611 shall be generated.
(f) Any decision by the Secretary concerning a transportation plan
or transportation improvement program developed in accordance with this
part shall not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review
under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). At the discretion of the MPO, in
cooperation with the State DOT and the transit operator, an
environmental analysis may be conducted on a transportation plan.
(g) The FHWA and the FTA project level actions, including but not
limited to issuance of a categorical exclusion, finding of no
significant impact or final environmental impact statement under 23 CFR
part 1420, approval of right of way acquisition, interstate interchange
approvals, approvals of HOV
[[Page 33954]]
conversions, funding of ITS projects, final design and construction,
and transit vehicle acquisition, may not be completed unless the
proposed project is included in a plan and the phase of the project for
which Federal action is sought is included in the metropolitan TIP.
None of these project-level actions can occur in nonattainment and
maintenance areas unless the project conforms according to the
requirements of the US EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and
93).
Sec. 1410.320 Congestion management system and planning process.
(a) In TMAs designated as nonattainment for ozone or carbon
monoxide, Federal funds may not be programmed for any project that will
result in a significant increase in carrying capacity for single
occupant vehicles (a new general purpose highway on a new location or
adding general purpose lanes, with the exception of safety improvements
or the elimination of bottlenecks) unless the project results from a
congestion management system (CMS) meeting the requirements of 23 CFR
part 500. Such projects shall incorporate all reasonably available
strategies to manage the single occupant vehicle (SOV) facility
effectively (or to facilitate its management in the future). Other
travel demand reduction and operational management strategies, as
appropriate for the corridor, but not appropriate for incorporation
into the SOV facility itself, shall be committed to by the State and
the MPO for implementation in a timely manner, but no later than the
completion date for the SOV project.
(b) In TMAs, the planning process must include the development of a
CMS that provides for effective management of new and existing
transportation facilities through the use of travel demand reduction
and operational management.
(c) The effectiveness of the congestion management system in
enhancing transportation investment decisions and improving the overall
efficiency of the metropolitan area's transportation systems and
facilities shall be evaluated periodically, preferably as part of the
metropolitan planning process.
Sec. 1410.322 Transportation plan content.
(a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include
the development of a transportation plan addressing at least a twenty
year planning horizon. The plan shall include both long-range and
short-range strategies/actions, including, but not limited to,
operations and management activities, that lead to the systematic
development of an integrated intermodal transportation system that
facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in
addressing current and future transportation demand. The transportation
plan shall be reviewed and updated every five years in attainment areas
and at least triennially in nonattainment and maintenance areas to
confirm its validity and its consistency with current and forecasted
transportation and land use conditions and trends and to extend the
forecast period. The transportation plan must be approved by the MPO.
Update processes shall include a mechanism for ensuring that the MPO,
the State DOT and the transit operator agree that the data utilized in
preparing other existing modal plans providing input to the
transportation plan are valid and benchmarked in relation to each other
and the transportation plan. In updating a plan, the MPO shall base the
update on the latest estimates and assumptions for population, land
use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity.
Reaffirmation or revisions of metropolitan plan contents and supporting
analyses produced by an update review require approval by the MPO.
(b) In addition, the plan shall, consistent with the following:
(1) Identify the projected transportation demand of persons and
goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of the plan;
(2) Identify adopted management and operations strategies (e.g.,
traveler information, traffic surveillance and control, incident and
emergency response, freight routing, reconstruction and work zones
management, weather response, pricing, fare payment alternatives,
public transportation management, demand management, alternative
routing, telecommuting, parking management, and intermodal
connectivity) that address the need for improved system performance and
the delivery of transportation services to customers under varying
conditions;
(3) Identify pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation
facilities in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g);
(4) Reflect the consideration given to the results of the
congestion management system, including in TMAs that are nonattainment
areas for carbon monoxide and ozone, identification of SOV projects
that result from a congestion management system that meets the
requirements of 23 CFR part 500;
(5) Assess capital investment and other measures necessary to
preserve the existing transportation system (including requirements for
operational improvements, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation
of existing and future major roadways, as well as operations,
maintenance, modernization, and rehabilitation of existing and future
transit facilities) and make the most efficient use of existing
transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and enhance
the mobility of people and goods;
(6) Include design concept and scope descriptions of all existing
and proposed transportation facilities in sufficient detail, regardless
of the source of funding, in nonattainment and maintenance areas to
permit conformity determinations under the U.S. EPA conformity
regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. In all areas, all proposed
improvements shall be described in sufficient detail to develop cost
estimates;
(7) Reflect a multimodal evaluation of the transportation,
socioeconomic, environmental, and financial impact of the overall plan;
(8) Reflect, to the extent that they exist, consideration of:
Comprehensive long-range land use plan(s) and development objectives;
State and local housing goals and strategies, community development and
employment plans and strategies, and environmental resource plans;
linking low income households with employment opportunities as
reflected in work force training and labor mobility plans and
strategies; energy conservation goals; and the metropolitan area's
overall social, economic, and environmental goals and objectives;
(9) Indicate, as appropriate, proposed transportation enhancement
activities as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a); and
(10) Include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of
proposed transportation investments (including illustrative projects
where identified in the financial plan) with already available and
projected sources of revenue. The financial plan shall compare the
estimated revenue from existing and proposed funding sources that can
reasonably be expected to be available for transportation uses, and the
estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the total
(existing plus planned) transportation system over the period of the
plan. Financial estimates utilized in preparing transportation plans
(and TIPs) shall be developed through procedures cooperatively
established and mutually agreed to by the MPO, the State DOT and the
transit operator(s). The estimated revenue by existing revenue source
(local, State, Federal and private) available for transportation
projects
[[Page 33955]]
shall be determined and any shortfalls identified. Proposed new
revenues and/or revenue sources to cover shortfalls shall be
identified, including strategies for ensuring their availability for
proposed investments. Existing and proposed revenues shall cover all
forecasted capital, operating, management, and maintenance costs. All
cost and revenue projections shall be based on the data reflecting the
existing situation and historical trends. For nonattainment and
maintenance areas, the financial plan shall address the specific
financial strategies required to ensure the implementation of projects
and programs to reach air quality compliance.
(11) Include an ITS integration strategy for the purposes of
guiding and coordinating the management and funding of ITS investments
supported with highway trust fund dollars to achieve an integrated
regional system. The scope of the integration strategy shall be
appropriate to the scale of investment anticipated for ITS during the
life of the plan and shall address the resource commitments and staging
of planned investments. Provision shall be made to include
participation from the following agencies, at a minimum, in the
development of the integration strategy: Highway and public safety
agencies; appropriate Federal lands agencies; State motor carrier
agencies as appropriate; and other operating agencies necessary to
fully address regional ITS integration. In determining how ITS
investments will meet metropolitan goals and objectives, the
integration strategy shall clearly assess existing and future ITS
systems, including their functions and electronic information sharing
expectations. Unique regional ITS initiatives (a program of related
projects) that are multi-jurisdictional and/or multi-modal, ITS
projects that affect regional integration of ITS systems, and projects
which directly support national interoperability shall be identified.
Documentation within the plan shall reflect the scale of investment and
the needs and size of the metropolitan area.
(c) There must be adequate opportunity for public official
(including elected officials) and citizen involvement in the
development of the transportation plan before it is approved by the
MPO, in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1410.316(b). Such
procedures shall include opportunities for interested parties
(including citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of
transportation agency employees, freight shippers, representatives of
users of public transit, providers of freight transportation services,
and private providers of transportation) to be involved in the early
stages of the plan development/update process. The procedures shall
include publication of the proposed plan or other methods to make it
readily available for public review and comment and, in nonattainment
TMAs, an opportunity for at least one formal public meeting annually to
review planning assumptions and the plan development process with
interested parties and the general public. The procedures also shall
include publication of the approved plan or other methods to make it
readily available for information purposes.
(d) In nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation
related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the MPO, must make
a conformity determination on any new/revised plan in accordance with
the Clean Air Act and the EPA conformity regulations (40 CFR parts 51
and 93). If a conformity determination cannot be accomplished by either
the MPO and or the FHWA and the FTA, the results will be communicated
to the Governor or the Governor's designee and the public transit
operator with an explanation of the potential consequences.
(e) The FHWA and the FTA do not approve transportation plans.
However, Federal actions and approvals, including, but not limited to,
conformity determinations, planning findings (pursuant to
Sec. 1410.322(b)), STIP approvals, completion of the NEPA process,
grant agreements, and project authorizations, are based on a
transportation plan with a horizon of at least twenty years on the
effective date of the plan. Plans that remain substantially unchanged
(i.e., regionally significant projects in attainment areas and non-
exempt projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas have not been
added) after adoption may serve as the basis for subsequent Federal
actions until such time as the next update. In attainment areas the
effective date of the plan shall be its date of adoption by the MPO. In
nonattainment and maintenance areas, the effective date shall be the
date of a conformity determination by the FHWA and the FTA.
(f) Although transportation plans do not need to be approved by the
FHWA or the FTA, copies of any new/revised plans must be provided to
each agency.
(g) During a conformity lapse metropolitan areas can prepare an
interim plan as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to
proceed under a conformity lapse (as defined in 40 CFR parts 51 and
93). In areas which expect to return to conformity earlier than six
months, the emphasis should be on reestablishing conformity, rather
than embarking on developing an interim plan and TIP.
Sec. 1410.324 Transportation improvement program content.
(a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include
development of a transportation improvement program (TIP) for the
metropolitan planning area by the MPO in cooperation with the State and
public transit operators.
(b) The TIP must be updated at least every two years and approved
by the MPO and the Governor. The frequency and cycle for updating the
TIP must be compatible with the STIP development and approval process.
Since the TIP becomes part of the STIP, the TIP lapses when the FHWA
and the FTA approval for the STIP lapses. In the case of extenuating
circumstances, the FHWA and the FTA will consider and take appropriate
action on requests to extend the STIP approval period for all or part
of the STIP in accordance with Sec. 1410.222(c). TIP extensions shall
not be granted in nonattainment or maintenance areas. Although
metropolitan TIPs are not approved individually by the FHWA or the FTA,
they are approved as part of the STIP approval action by the FTA and
the FHWA. Copies of any new or amended TIPs must be provided to each
agency. Additionally, in nonattainment and maintenance areas for
transportation related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the
MPO, must make a conformity determination on any new or amended TIPs
(unless the new amended TIP consists entirely of exempt projects) in
accordance with the Clean Air Act requirements and the EPA conformity
regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
(c) There must be reasonable opportunity for public comment in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1410.316(b) and, in
nonattainment TMAs, an opportunity for at least one formal public
meeting during the TIP development process. This public meeting may be
combined with the public meeting required under Sec. 1410.322(c). The
proposed TIP shall be published or otherwise made readily available for
review and comment. Similarly, the approved TIP shall be published or
otherwise made readily available for information purposes.
(d) The TIP shall cover a period of not less than three years, but
may cover a longer period if it identifies priorities and financial
information for the additional years. The TIP must include a priority
list of projects to be advanced in the first three years. As a minimum,
[[Page 33956]]
the priority list shall group the projects that are to be undertaken in
each of the years, i.e., year one, year two, year three. In
nonattainment and maintenance areas, the TIP shall give priority to
eligible TCMs identified in the approved SIP in accordance with the
U.S. EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and shall
provide for their timely implementation.
(e) The TIP shall be financially constrained by year and include a
financial plan that demonstrates which projects can be implemented
using current revenue sources and which projects are to be implemented
using proposed revenue sources (while the existing transportation
system is being adequately operated and maintained). The financial plan
shall be developed by the MPO in cooperation with the State and the
transit operator. Financial estimates utilized in preparing TIPs shall
be developed through procedures cooperatively established and mutually
agreed to by the MPO, the State DOT and the transit operator(s). It is
expected that the State would develop this information as part of the
STIP development process and that the estimates would be refined
through this process. Only projects for which construction and
operating funds can reasonably be expected to be available (and
illustrative projects) may be included. In the case of new funding
sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be
identified. In developing the financial analysis, the MPO shall take
into account all projects and strategies funded under title 23, U.S.C.,
49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, other Federal funds, local sources, State
assistance, and private participation. In nonattainment and maintenance
areas, projects included for the first two years of the current TIP
shall be limited to those for which funds are available or committed.
(f) The TIP shall include:
(1) All transportation projects, or identified phases of a project,
(including pedestrian walkways, safety, bicycle transportation
facilities and transportation enhancement projects) within the
metropolitan planning area proposed for funding under title 23, U.S.C.,
and Federal Lands Highway projects. Title 49, U.S.C., Emergency relief
projects (except those involving substantial functional, locational or
capacity changes) and planning and research activities (except those
funded with NHS, STP, and/or Minimum Guarantee funds) are exempt from
this requirement. Planning and research activities funded with NHS, STP
and/or Minimum Guarantee funds may be excluded from the TIP by
agreement of the State and the MPO;
(2) Only projects that are consistent with the transportation plan;
(3) All regionally significant transportation projects for which an
FHWA or FTA action is required whether or not the projects are to be
funded with title 23, U.S.C., or title 49, U.S.C., funds, e.g.,
addition of an interchange to the Interstate System with State, local,
and/or private funds, demonstration projects not funded under titles 23
and 49, U.S.C., etc.;
(4) Any FTA or FHWA funded or approved projects submitted to EPA
for consideration as a SIP TCM;
(5) For air quality analysis in nonattainment and maintenance areas
and informational purposes in other areas, all regionally significant
transportation projects proposed to be funded with Federal funds,
including intermodal facilities, not covered in paragraphs (f)(1) or
(f)(3) of this section; and
(6) For air quality analysis in nonattainment and maintenance areas
and informational purposes in other areas, all regionally significant
projects to be funded with non-Federal funds.
(g) With respect to each project or project phase under paragraph
(f) of this section the TIP shall include:
(1) Sufficient descriptive material (i.e., type of work, termini,
length, etc.) to identify the project or phase;
(2) Estimated total project cost (which may extend beyond the three
years of the TIP);
(3) The amount of Federal funds proposed to be obligated during
each program year for the project or phase of the project;
(4) Proposed category and source of Federal and non-Federal funds;
(5) Identification of the recipient/subrecipient and State and
local agencies responsible for carrying out the project or phase of the
project;
(6) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, identification of those
projects or phases of projects which are identified as TCMs in the
applicable SIP or are new TCMs with emissions benefits being submitted
for SIP approval during a conformity lapse; and
(7) In areas with Americans with Disabilities Act required
paratransit and key station plans, identification of those projects or
phases of projects which will implement the plans.
(h) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included shall
be specified in sufficient detail (design concept and scope) to permit
air quality analysis in accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity
requirements (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
(i) Projects proposed for FHWA and/or FTA funding that are not
considered by the State and the MPO to be of appropriate scale for
individual identification in a given program year may be grouped by
function, geographic area, and work type using applicable
classifications under 23 CFR 1420.117 (c) and (d). In nonattainment and
maintenance areas, classifications must be consistent with the exempt
project classifications contained in the U.S. EPA conformity
requirements (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). In addition, projects funded
under Chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. may be grouped by funding category and
shown as one line unless they are determined to be regionally
significant.
(j) Projects utilizing Federal funds that have been allocated to
the area pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(E) shall be identified.
(k) The total Federal share of projects included in the TIP
proposed for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5307 may not exceed formula backed
apportioned funding levels available to the area for the program year.
(l) Procedures or agreements that distribute suballocated Surface
Transportation Program or urbanized area formula (49 U.S.C. 5307) funds
to individual jurisdictions or modes within the metropolitan area by
predetermined percentages or formulas are inconsistent with the
legislative provisions that require MPOs in cooperation with the State
and transit operators to develop a prioritized and financially
constrained TIP and shall not be used unless they can be clearly shown
to be based on considerations required to be addressed as part of the
planning process.
(m) For the purpose of including transit projects funded through
Capital Investment Grants or Loans (49 U.S.C. 5309) in a TIP, the
following approach shall be followed:
(1) The total Federal share of projects included in the first year
of the TIP shall not exceed levels of funding committed to the area;
and
(2) The total Federal share of projects included in the second,
third and/or subsequent years of the TIP may not exceed levels of
funding committed, apportioned, appropriated (including carryover and
unobligated balances reasonably expected to be available, to the area.
(n) As a management tool for monitoring progress in implementing
the transportation plan, the TIP shall:
(1) Identify the criteria and process for prioritizing
implementation of transportation plan elements (including intermodal
trade-offs) for inclusion in
[[Page 33957]]
the TIP and any changes in priorities from previous TIPs;
(2) List major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented
and identify any significant delays in the planned implementation of
major projects;
(3) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, describe the progress
in implementing any required TCMs, including the reasons for any
significant delays in the planned implementation and strategies for
ensuring their advancement at the earliest possible time; and
(4) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, include a list of all
projects found to conform in a previous TIP. Projects shall be included
in this list until construction has been fully authorized.
(5) Serve as a basis for an annual listing of projects for which
Federal funds have been obligated, supplemented as appropriate to
ensure annual public access to information on the obligation of funds.
(o) In order to maintain or establish operations, in the absence of
an approved metropolitan TIP, the FTA and/or the FHWA Administrators,
as appropriate, may approve operating assistance.
(p) During a conformity lapses metropolitan areas may prepare an
interim TIP as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to
proceed under a lapse (as defined in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93). In areas
which expect to return to conformity earlier than six months, the
emphasis should be on reestablishing conformity, rather than embarking
on developing an interim plan and TIP.
Sec. 1410.326 Transportation improvement program modification.
The TIP may be modified at any time under procedures agreed to by
the cooperating parties consistent with the procedures established in
this part for its development and approval. In nonattainment or
maintenance areas for transportation related pollutants, if the TIP is
modified by adding or deleting non-exempt projects or is replaced with
a new TIP, a new conformity determinations by the MPO and the FHWA and
the FTA shall be made. Public involvement procedures consistent with
Sec. 1410.316(b) shall be utilized in modifying the TIP, except that
these procedures are not required for TIP modifications that only
involve projects of the type covered in Sec. 1410.324(i).
Sec. 1410.328 Metropolitan transportation improvement program
relationship in statewide TIP.
(a) After approval by the MPO and the Governor, the TIP shall be
included without modification, directly or by reference, in the STIP
program required under 23 U.S.C. 135 and consistent with Sec. 1410.220,
except that in nonattainment and maintenance areas, a conformity
finding by the FHWA and the FTA must be made before it is included in
the STIP. After approval by the MPO and the Governor, a copy shall be
provided to the FHWA and the FTA.
(b) The State shall notify the appropriate MPO and Federal Lands
Highways Program agencies, e.g., Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or
National Park Service, when a TIP including projects under the
jurisdiction of these agencies has been included in the STIP.
Sec. 1410.330 Transportation improvement program action by FHWA/FTA.
(a) The FHWA and the FTA must jointly find that each metropolitan
TIP is consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan produced by
the continuing, comprehensive transportation process carried on
cooperatively by the States, the MPOs and the transit operators in
accordance with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5307 and
5313(b). This finding shall be based on the self-certification
statement submitted by the State and MPO under Sec. 1410.334, a review
of the metropolitan transportation plan and upon other reviews as
deemed necessary by the FHWA and the FTA.
(b) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the FHWA and the FTA
must also jointly determine, in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93,
that the metropolitan TIP conforms with the applicable SIP and that
priority has been given to the timely implementation of transportation
control measures contained in the applicable SIP. As part of their
review in nonattainment and maintenance areas requiring TCMs, the FHWA
and the FTA will specifically consider any comments relating to the
financial plans for the plan and TIP contained in the summary of
significant comments required under Sec. 1410.316(b). If the TIP is
determined to be in nonconformance with the SIP, the FHWA and FTA shall
return the TIP to the Governor and the MPO with an explanation of the
joint determination and an explanation of potential consequences. If
the TIP is found to conform with the SIP, the Governor and MPO shall be
notified of the joint finding. After the FHWA and the FTA find the TIP
to be in conformance, the TIP shall be incorporated, without
modification, into the STIP, directly or by reference.
(c) If an illustrative project is included in the TIP, no Federal
action may be taken on that project by the FHWA and the FTA until it is
formally included in the fiscally constrained and conforming plan and
TIP. The MPOs are not required to include illustrative projects in
future TIPs.
Sec. 1410.332 Selecting projects from a TIP.
(a) Once a TIP that meets the requirements of Sec. 1410.324 has
been developed and approved, the first year of the TIP shall constitute
an ``agreed to'' list of projects for project selection purposes and no
further project selection action is required for the implementing
agency to proceed with projects, except where the appropriated Federal
funds available to the metropolitan planning area are significantly
less than the authorized amounts. In this case, a revised ``agreed to''
list of projects shall be jointly developed by the MPO, the State, and
the transit operator if requested by the MPO, the State, or the transit
operator. If the State or transit operator wishes to proceed with a
project in the second or third year of the TIP, the specific project
selection procedures stated in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
must be used unless the MPO, the State, and the transit operator
jointly develop expedited project selection procedures to provide for
the advancement of projects from the second or third year of the TIP.
(b) In areas not designated as TMAs and when Sec. 1410.332(c) does
not apply, projects to be implemented using title 23 funds other than
Federal lands projects or title 49 funds shall be selected by the State
and/or the transit operator, in cooperation with the MPO from the
approved metropolitan TIP Federal Lands Highway Program projects shall
be selected in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204.
(c) In areas designated as TMAs where Sec. 1410.332(c) does not
apply, all title 23 and title 49 funded projects, except projects on
the NHS and projects funded under the bridge, and Federal Lands
Highways programs, shall be selected by the MPO in consultation with
the State and transit operator from the approved metropolitan TIP and
in accordance with the priorities in the approved metropolitan TIP.
Projects on the NHS and projects funded under the bridge program shall
be selected by the State in cooperation with the MPO, from the approved
metropolitan TIP. Federal Lands Highway Program projects shall
[[Page 33958]]
be selected in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204.
(d) Projects not included in the federally approved STIP shall not
be eligible for funding with title 23 or title 49, U.S.C., funds.
(e) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, priority shall be given
to the timely implementation of TCMs contained in the applicable SIP in
accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity regulations at 40 CFR parts 51
and 93.
Sec. 1410.334 Federal certifications.
(a) The State and the MPO shall annually self-certify to the FHWA
and the FTA that the planning process is addressing the major issues
facing the area and is being conducted in accordance with all
applicable requirements of:
(1) 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306;
(2) Sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d));
(3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Title VI
assurance executed by each State under 23 U.S.C. 324 and 29 U.S.C. 794;
(4) Section 1003(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240, 105 stat. 1914) regarding
the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in the FHWA and
the FTA funded planning projects (sec. 105(f), Public Law 97-424, 96
Stat. 2100; 49 CFR part 23);
(5) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq.) and U.S. DOT regulations ``Transportation for Individuals with
Disabilities'' (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38);
(6) Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); and
(7) The provisions of 49 CFR part 20 regarding restrictions on
influencing certain Federal activities.
(8) All other applicable provisions of Federal law.
(b) The FHWA and the FTA jointly will review and evaluate the
transportation planning process for each TMA (as appropriate but no
less than once every three years) to determine if the process meets the
requirements of this subpart.
(c) In TMAs that are nonattainment or maintenance areas for
transportation related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA will also
review and evaluate the transportation planning process to assure that
the MPO has an adequate process to ensure conformity of plans and
programs in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
(d) Upon the review and evaluation conducted under paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section, the FHWA and the FTA shall take one of the
following actions, as indicated:
(1) Where the process meets the requirements of this part, jointly
certify the transportation planning process;
(2) Where the process substantially meets the requirements of this
part, jointly certify the transportation planning process subject to
certain specified corrective actions being taken; or
(3) Where the process does not meet the requirements of this part,
jointly certify the planning process as the basis for approval of only
those categories of programs or projects that the Administrators may
jointly determine and subject to certain specified corrective actions
being taken.
(e) A certification action under this section will remain in effect
for three years unless a new certification determination is made sooner
or a shorter term is specified in the certification report.
(f) If, upon the review and evaluation conducted under paragraph
(b) or (c) of this section, the FHWA and the FTA jointly determine that
the transportation planning process in a TMA does not substantially
meet the requirements, they may take the following action as
appropriate:
(1) Withhold up to twenty percent of the apportionment attributed
to the relevant metropolitan planning area under 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3),
capital funds apportioned under 49 U.S.C. 5307-5309; or
(2) Withhold approval of all or certain categories of projects.
(g) In conducting a certification review, the FHWA and the FTA
shall make provision, relying on the local public involvement processes
and supplemented with other involvement strategies as appropriate, to
engage the public in the review process. The FHWA and the FTA shall
consider the public input received in arriving at a decision on a
certification action.
(h) The State and the MPO shall be notified of the actions taken
under paragraph (f) of this section. Upon full, joint certification by
the FHWA and the FTA, all funds withheld will be restored to the
metropolitan area, unless the funds have lapsed.
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Chapter VI
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Transit
Administration proposes to amend Chapter VI of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 613--[REMOVED]
3. Remove part 613.
4. Add part 621 to read as follows:
PART 621--METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE PLANNING
Subpart A--Planning
Sec.
621.100 Definitions.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and programming
621.200 Statewide transportation planning and programming.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
621.300 Metropolitan transportation planning and programming.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49
U.S.C. 5303-5309; 49 CFR .151.
Subpart A--Planning
Sec. 621.100 Definitions.
The regulations in 23 CFR 1410, subpart A, shall be followed in
complying with the requirements of this subpart.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and programming
Sec. 621.200 Statewide transportation planning and programming.
The regulations in 23 CFR 1410 subpart B, shall be followed in
complying with the requirements of this subpart.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
Sec. 621.300 Metropolitan transportation planning and programming
The regulations in 23 CFR part 1410, subpart C, shall be followed
in complying with the requirements of this subpart.
Issued on: May 18, 2000.
Vincent F. Schimmoller,
Acting Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration.
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-13021 Filed 5-19-00; 1:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-MR-P