[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33510-33560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5145]
[[Page 33509]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 450 and 500
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 613
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation
Planning; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 2006 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 33510]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 450 and 500
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 613
[Docket No. FHWA-2005-22986]
FHWA RIN 2125-AF09; FTA RIN 2132-AA82
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 the revision of regulations governing the development of
metropolitan transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas,
State transportation plans and programs and the regulations for
Congestion Management Systems and invites public comment. This proposed
revision results from the recent passage of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, August 10, 2005), which also incorporates
changes initiated in its predecessor legislation, the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178, June 9,
1998) and generally would make the regulations consistent with current
statutory requirements. Interested parties are invited to send comments
regarding all facets of this proposal.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, submit electronically at http://dms.dot.gov or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. Alternatively, comments
may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should include the docket number that
appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be
available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those
desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Persons making comments may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 53, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or may visit
http://dms.dot.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the FHWA: Mr. Larry D. Anderson,
Planning Oversight and Stewardship Team (HEPP-10), (202) 366-2374, Mr.
Robert Ritter, Planning Capacity Building Team (HEPP-20), (202) 493-
2139, or Ms. Diane Liff, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-10), (202)
366-6203. For the FTA: Mr. Charles Goodman, Office of Planning and
Environment, (202) 366-1944, Ms. Carolyn Mulvihill, Office of Planning
and Environment, (202) 366-2258, or Mr. Christopher VanWyk, Office of
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1733. Both agencies are located at 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to
4:15 p.m for FHWA, and 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. for FTA, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
Interested parties may submit or retrieve comments online through
the Docket Management System (DMS) at http://dms.dot.gov. The DMS Web
site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Follow the
instructions online. Additional assistance is available at the help
section of the Web site.
An electronic copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking may be
downloaded using the Office of the Federal Register's Web page at:
http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page
at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html.
Background
Statement of the Problem
The joint FHWA/FTA rules governing statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning have remained unchanged since the agencies
originally promulgated these rules on October 28, 1993 (58 FR 58064) in
response to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, December 18, 1991). Two statutory
changes--the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU--have occurred in the
intervening years. The FHWA and the FTA, State Departments of
Transportations (DOTs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs),
public transportation operators and the transportation community at
large have evolved, and technology has improved. The proposed revisions
would recognize the changes that have occurred in the last 12 years and
bring the regulation up to date. We invite comments on all aspects of
the proposed regulation, including the clarity of its requirements and
any anticipated operational issues.
The existing rules have not been revised or amended since issuance
in 1993, with two exceptions: The temporary waiver of certain
metropolitan transportation planning and transportation conformity
requirements for the New York City metropolitan area in response to the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (67 FR 62373, October 7, 2002),
which has ended, and the requirement for States to establish,
implement, and periodically review and revise a documented consultation
process(es) with non-metropolitan local officials (68 FR 3181, January
23, 2003). The proposed regulations would not change the requirements
related to State consultation with non-metropolitan local officials.
Section 1308 of the TEA-21 required the Secretary to eliminate the
major investment study set forth in Section 450.318 of title 23, Code
of Federal Regulations, as a separate requirement, and promulgate
regulations to integrate such requirement, as appropriate, as part of
the analyses required to be undertaken pursuant to the planning
provisions of title 23, U.S.C. and title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53 and the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for Federal-aid
highway and transit projects. In addition, Section 3005 of SAFETEA-LU
requires the Secretary to issue regulations setting standards for the
Annual Listing of Projects required in 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(7)(B) and 49
U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(B) as amended by SAFETEA-LU. The proposed regulations
are intended to satisfy these requirements.
History
SAFETEA-LU. Section 6001 of the SAFETEA-LU amended 23 U.S.C. 134
and 135, to require a continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated
transportation planning and programming process in metropolitan areas
and States. Similar changes were made to 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306 by
sections 3005, 3006 and 3007 of the SAFETEA-LU, which address the
[[Page 33511]]
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes in the
context of the FTA's responsibilities. Section 1308 of TEA-21, which
requires the Secretary of Transportation to eliminate the major
investment study as a separate requirement and, as appropriate,
integrate the requirement into the transportation planning and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, was not changed by the
SAFETEA-LU and remains in effect.
Prior Rulemaking. On May 25, 2000, the FHWA and the FTA jointly
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register (65 FR 33922) proposing amendments to the existing
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning regulations 23 CFR
part 450 and 49 CFR part 613. Concurrently, the FHWA and the FTA
jointly proposed to redesignate and amend existing regulations to
further emphasize using the NEPA process to facilitate effective and
timely transportation planning decisionmaking (65 FR 33959, May 25,
2000). The metropolitan and statewide transportation planning and NEPA
NPRMs were issued concurrently to further the goal of the FTA and the
FHWA to better coordinate the planning processes with project
development activities and decisions associated with the NEPA process.
On July 7, 2000 (65 FR 41891), a supplemental notice was published to
extend the comment period on both NPRMs until September 23, 2000.
More than 400 documents (representing slightly more than 300
discrete comments) were submitted to that docket, distributed
relatively equally among three primary sources: State DOTs, MPOs, and
various other transportation stakeholder groups.
During the comment period, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works and the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held hearings regarding the NPRMs on September 12 and
13, 2000, respectively, focused on the intent of TEA-21 and possible
burdens on State DOTs and MPOs that would not, it was asserted, result
in increased efficiency and effectiveness of the planning or project
development processes.
In response to the number, extent, and nature of the concerns, as
well as in anticipation of further imminent statutory guidance
(although, as it turned out, the SAFETEA-LU would not be enacted until
2005), the FHWA and FTA issued a notice in the September 20, 2002,
Federal Register (67 FR 59219) withdrawing the NPRM.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FHWA and the FTA proceeded with a separate rulemaking
effort to address the issue of State consultation with non-
metropolitan local officials. A final rule on that issue was
published January 23, 2003 (68 FR 3181).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the years since the May 2000 NPRM, transportation planning has
continued to evolve. For example, the 2000 census identified increased
urbanization, requiring the designation of additional metropolitan
areas and establishment of additional MPOs and new Transportation
Management Areas (TMAs). The TEA-21 provided increased funds for
transportation planning. Improved technologies such as Geographic
Information Systems (GIS), the proliferation of Internet use, and
improved data collection and processing have allowed planners to
analyze more data and provide new ways to share information. New
partners, such as freight carriers and shippers, are engaged in the
process. The nation increasingly competes in a global economy, with
greater emphasis on the need to move freight efficiently, and a greater
recognition for the need to maximize the use and efficiency of the
existing transportation system. The planning regulations need to be
updated to respond to these and other related changes, as well as to
the new statutory mandates of the SAFETEA-LU.
Interim Guidance
After withdrawing the NPRM, the FHWA and the FTA developed and
issued a number of guidance documents to provide direction to State
DOTs, MPOs and public transportation operators in implementing the TEA-
21 statutory provisions. These are summarized below:
On February 2, 2001, the FHWA and the FTA jointly issued
``Implementing TEA-21 Planning Provisions'',\2\ which provided
information on how to proceed with the TEA-21 statutory planning
requirements, noting that ``Although new planning regulations have not
been issued, the requirements in TEA-21 are in effect.'' Under this
guidance, the FHWA and the FTA field offices were to work with MPOs,
State DOTs, and transit operators ``to ensure a basic level of
compliance with TEA-21 planning requirements, based on the statutory
language.'' The guidance focused on the following new TEA-21
requirements: (a) Annual listing of projects; (b) revenue estimates for
transportation plans and TIPs; (c) State consultation with local
officials in non-metropolitan areas; (d) consultation with transit
users and freight shippers and service providers; (e) MIS integration;
(f) Federal planning finding for STIP approvals; (g) consolidation of
planning factors; and (h) public involvement during certification
reviews. These requirements continue, some enhanced, in SAFETEA-LU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the
following URL:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tea21mem.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, on February 22, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA issued
joint ``Program Guidance on Linking the Transportation Planning and
NEPA Processes.'' \3\ This guidance, developed for use by State DOTs,
MPOs, and public transportation operators, summarized and further
explained provisions in current law and regulation, and provided
direction on how information, analysis, and products from metropolitan
and statewide transportation planning processes (pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306) could be incorporated into and relied
upon in the NEPA process under existing Federal statutes and
regulations. This guidance is included in this proposal as Appendix A
to part 450. A companion legal analysis outlining authority under
current law was also issued on February 22, 2005.\4\ Appendix A
reiterates the statutory provision that transportation plans and
programs are exempt from NEPA review. Development of Appendix A
involved outreach to key national transportation planning stakeholder
groups (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (AMPO), the National Association of Regional Councils
(NARC), the American of Public Transportation Association (APTA), and
the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) as well as Federal
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/aa5aec9f63be385c852568cc0055ea16/9fd918150ac2449685256fb10050726c?OpenDocument OpenDocument.
\4\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://nepa. fhwa.dot.gov/renepa/renepa. nsf/
All+Documents/ 9FD918150AC2449685256FB10050726C /$FILE/Planning-
NEPA%20guidance,%20legal,%20 final,%202-22-05.doc or http://nepa.
fhwa.dot.gov/ renepa/renepa. nsf/All+ Documents/9FD918150AC
2449685256FB10050726C/$FILE/ Planning-NEPA%20guidance,%20legal,
%20final, %202- 22-05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 10, 2005, the FHWA issued a memorandum on Wetland and
Natural Habitat Mitigation that emphasized that wetland and natural
habitat mitigation measures, such as wetland and habitat banks or
statewide and regional
[[Page 33512]]
conservation measures, are eligible for Federal-aid participation when
they are undertaken to create mitigation resources for future
transportation projects. In its memorandum, the FHWA clarified that, to
provide for wetland or other mitigation banks, the State DOT and the
FHWA Division Office should identify potential future wetlands and
habitat mitigation needs for a reasonable time frame and establish a
need for the mitigation credits. The transportation planning process
should guide the determination of future mitigation needs. (See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wetland/wethabmitmem.htm.) The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps) have also announced proposed revisions to
regulations governing compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to
wetlands, streams, and other waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. (See 71 FR 15520 (March 28, 2006).) These
revisions are designed to improve the effectiveness of compensatory
mitigation at replacing lost aquatic resource functions and area,
expand public participation in compensatory mitigation decision-making,
and increase the efficiency and predictability of the process of
proposing compensatory mitigation and approving new mitigation banks.
On March 30, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA issued joint ``Guidance on
Designation and Redesignation of MPOs.'' \5\ This guidance, designed to
address inconsistencies that existed between 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C.
5303, and 23 CFR Part 450 regarding the designation and redesignation
of MPOs, provided clarifying information and illustrative examples of
scenarios that do and do not trigger MPO redesignations, based on
several actual events that transpired since the enactment of TEA-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/mpodes.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 12, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA jointly issued ``Planning
Horizons for Metropolitan Long Range Transportation Plans.'' \6\ This
guidance provided updated and clarified information on the ``planning
horizon'' requirement for metropolitan long-range transportation plans.
The guidance required that metropolitan long-range transportation plans
(see 23 CFR 450.322(a)) shall address ``at least a 20-year planning
horizon.'' Furthermore, the guidance allowed the FHWA and the FTA to
take actions on STIPs/TIPs and associated amendments or transportation
conformity determinations with an MPO long-range transportation plan
initially adopted with a minimum 20-year planning horizon. However, if
the long-range transportation plan is amended to add, delete, or
significantly change a regionally significant project (in any
metropolitan area), the transportation plan's horizon should be at
least 20 years at the time of the MPO action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/planhorz.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA jointly issued ``Guidance on
Fiscal Constraint for STIPs, TIPs, and Metropolitan Plans.'' \7\ This
guidance summarized and described in detail the ISTEA and TEA-21 fiscal
constraint requirements to ensure that transportation plans and
programs reflect realistic assumptions on capital, operations, and
maintenance costs associated with the surface transportation system.
This guidance is included in this proposal as Appendix B to Part 450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 2, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA jointly issued ``Interim
Guidance for Implementing Key SAFETEA-LU Provisions on Planning,
Environment, and Air Quality for Joint FHWA/FTA Authorities.'' \8\ This
guidance was issued after the enactment of the SAFETEA-LU to inform the
FHWA and the FTA field offices on how to implement SAFETEA-LU
provisions. related to transportation planning, air quality, and
environment. This guidance established the following interim
implementation schedule and requirements: (a) Statewide and
metropolitan transportation plans and programs under development at the
time of SAFETEA-LU enactment could be completed under TEA-21
requirements and schedules; (b) transportation plans and programs
adopted after July 1, 2007, must comply with all the SAFETEA-LU
planning provisions; (c) States or MPOs opting to implement the
SAFETEA-LU requirements prior to July 1, 2007, must satisfy all the
SAFETEA-LU provisions prior to adoption of transportation plans and
programs; and (d) FHWA/FTA certifications of Transportation Management
Areas (TMAs) would be extended to four years (except for any existing
``conditional'' certifications, which must be completed as previously
scheduled).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/igslpja.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of the Proposed Regulation
The proposed revised regulations reflect the requirements of the
SAFETEA-LU, including requirements first mandated in the TEA-21. To
implement these legislative mandates, we have adhered closely to the
statutory language in drafting the regulation. Over time, and as
necessary, the FHWA and FTA will continue to issue additional guidance
and disseminate information on noteworthy practices.
Approach to Structure of Proposed Regulation
While the statutory changes resulting from the SAFETEA-LU form a
large basis for the proposed regulation, several pre-existing
regulatory provisions not specifically mentioned in the SAFETEA-LU
remain relevant for carry over into the new rule. The statute alone
does not fully present all the connections between various regulatory
provisions nor define program stewardship and oversight mechanisms.
Oversight mechanisms such as FHWA/FTA certification reviews of TMAs and
the FHWA/FTA planning finding to support approval of the STIP have been
effectively used to ensure compliance and to add value for promoting
continuous improvement in the statewide and metropolitan transportation
planning process.
Close adherence to the legislative mandate, described in ``Key
Statutory Changes'' below, and further highlighted in the ``Section by
Section Discussion,'' means that additional regulatory language was
generally not included in the revised regulation if it expanded
significantly on legislative language. In some cases, which will be
noted below, other factors, such as court decisions or Presidential
directives, required change and amplification. In these instances,
however, we have tried to keep supplemental, non-statutory language to
a minimum in the proposed regulations, except where clarification would
assist compliance. In most cases, State DOTs, MPOs, transportation
stakeholders, and the public are familiar and experienced in using
existing practices.
We also propose to clarify and revise the regulation's section
headings to use plainer language, as described below. The organization
of each section and general structure reflects, mostly unchanged, the
existing regulation, except as indicated in the ``Section by Section
Discussion''.
The FHWA and FTA have conducted routine coordination/outreach
activities with major transportation stakeholders,
[[Page 33513]]
including regular participation in national and regional conferences
and meetings on transportation planning issues, that provided important
insight and perspective on the transportation planning process. In
addition to these meetings, the FHWA and the FTA met with
transportation stakeholder organizations as appropriate to understand
the state-of-the-practice of transportation planning and recent or
emerging policy concerns, identify noteworthy practices, and highlight
outstanding transportation planning initiatives. Through programs such
as the Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program,\9\ the FHWA
and the FTA have reached out to the transportation planning community
to provide technical assistance and technology transfer and strengthen
the transportation planning processes. Further, the FHWA and the FTA
have worked with State DOTs, MPOs, and public transportation operators
through their professional associations to discuss proposed guidance
and statutory changes, and to implement improvements to the
transportation planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program
is a collaborative effort of FHWA and the FTA with various public
and private organizations. Broadly speaking, it exists to help State
and local transportation staff meet their complex political, social,
economic, and environmental demands. On a practical level, the TPCB
Program provides information, training, and technical assistance to
help transportation professionals create plans and programs that
respond to the needs of the many users of their local transportation
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the regulation, the knowledge we have gained
regarding concerns and operations of our program stakeholders has
assisted our understanding of the effect of both statute and
regulations in a real world environment, enabled us to anticipate and
address stakeholders' issues and concerns, and has made us attentive to
the need to issue and administer regulations that are flexible to apply
across the United States. For example, we propose retaining the
existing rule language on separate and discrete State consultation
processes with non-metropolitan local officials based on stakeholders'
past concerns.
These proposed rules were developed by an interagency and
multidisciplinary task force of transportation planners, engineers and
environmental specialists of the FHWA and the FTA, with input from
other Federal agencies and components of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation. The task force reviewed legislation and input received
from partners and stakeholders. In addition, comments were solicited
from the field staffs of the FHWA and the FTA.
Key Statutory Changes
Although substantial portions of the SAFETEA-LU sections 3005,
3006, and 6001 mirror previous law, there are several key statutory
changes and new requirements, summarized below:
Metropolitan Planning
New Planning Factor: Security and safety of the transportation
system are stand-alone planning factors, signaling an increase in
importance from prior legislation, in which security and safety were
coupled in the same planning factor. (23 U.S.C. 134(h)(1)(C) and 49
U.S.C. 5303(h)(1)(C).
Expanded Planning Factor: The TEA-21 planning factor related to
environment was expanded to include ``promote consistency between
transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns.'' (23 U.S.C. 134(h)(1)(E) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(h)(1)(E)).
Metropolitan Transportation Plans: The requirement for metropolitan
transportation plans to cover a 20-year minimum plan horizon at the
time of adoption is maintained. The SAFETEA-LU statutorily established
time frames for updating metropolitan transportation plans. For air
quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, transportation plans shall
be updated at least every four years (compared to a three-year update
cycle in the regulations implementing ISTEA). The requirement for
attainment area MPOs to update transportation plans at least every five
years remains unchanged from the regulations.
Environmental Mitigation Activities in Metropolitan Transportation
Plans: Metropolitan transportation plans shall include a discussion of
potential environmental mitigation activities, to be developed in
consultation with Federal, State and Tribal wildlife, land management,
and regulatory agencies. (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(2)(B)).
New Consultations: MPOs shall consult ``as appropriate'' with
``State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural
resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic
preservation'' in developing metropolitan transportation plans (23
U.S.C. 134(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4)).
Participation Plan: MPOs must develop and utilize a ``Participation
Plan'' that provides reasonable opportunities for interested parties to
comment on the content of the metropolitan transportation plan and
metropolitan TIP. Further, this ``Participation Plan'' must be
developed ``in consultation with all interested parties.'' (23 U.S.C.
134(i)(5)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(B)).
Congestion Management Processes in Transportation Management Areas
(TMAs): Within a metropolitan planning area serving a TMA, there must
be ``a process that provides for effective management and operation''
to address congestion management (23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3)) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(k)(3)).
Operational and Management Strategies in Transportation Plans:
Metropolitan transportation plans shall include operational and
management strategies to improve the performance of the existing
transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize
the safety and mobility of people and goods (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(D))
and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(D)).
TIP Cycles and Scope: TIPs are to be updated at least every four
years (compared to at least every two years in ISTEA and TEA-21). In
addition, TIPs must include projects covering four years (compared to
three years in ISTEA and TEA-21) (23 U.S.C. 134(j)(1)(D) and
134(j)(2)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(1)(D) and 5303(j)(2)(A)).
Visualization Techniques in Metropolitan Transportation Plan and
TIP Development: As part of transportation plan and TIP development,
MPOs shall employ visualization techniques to the maximum extent
practicable (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(C)(ii) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(5)(C)(ii)).
Publication of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and TIP: MPOs
shall publish or otherwise make available for public review
transportation plans and TIPs ``including (to the maximum extent
practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as
the World Wide Web'' (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(6) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(6) on
transportation plans and 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(7)(a) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(j)(7)(a) on TIPs).
Annual Listing of Obligated Projects: This TEA-21 requirement is
retained, but the development of the annual listing ``shall be a
cooperative effort of the State, transit operator, and MPO.'' For
clarity, two new project types (investments in pedestrian walkways and
bicycle transportation facilities) for which Federal funds have been
obligated in the preceding year in the metropolitan planning area are
emphasized (23 U.S.C. 134(j)(7)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(B)).
TMA Certification Cycle: FHWA/FTA must certify each TMA planning
process
[[Page 33514]]
at least every four years (compared to every three years in ISTEA and
TEA-21) (23 U.S.C. 134(k)(5)(A)(ii) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(5)(A)(ii)).
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): State must develop a
strategic highway safety plan that identifies and analyzes safety
problems and opportunities in order to use Highway Safety Improvement
Program funds for new eligible activities under 23 U.S.C. 148.
Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan:
Sections 3012, 3018, and 3019 of the SAFETEA-LU require that proposed
projects under three FTA formula funding programs (Special Needs of
Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (49 U.S.C.
5310(d)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)); Job Access and Reverse Commute (49 U.S.C.
5316(g)(3)(A) and (B)); and New Freedom (49 U.S.C. 5317(f)(3)(A) and
(B)) must be derived from a locally developed public transit-human
services transportation plan. This plan must be developed through a
process that includes representatives of public, private, and non-
profit transportation and human services providers, as well as the
public. And, an areawide solicitation for applications for grants under
the latter two programs above shall be made in cooperation with the
appropriate MPO.
Statewide Planning
New Planning Factor: Security and safety of the transportation
system are stand-alone planning factors, signaling an increase in
importance from prior legislation, in which security and safety were in
the same planning factor (23 U.S.C. 135(d)(1)(C) and 49 U.S.C.
5304(d)(1)(C)).
Expanded Planning Factor: The TEA-21 planning factor related to
environment was expanded to include ``promote consistency between
transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns'' (23 U.S.C. 135(d)(1)(E) and 49 U.S.C.
5304(d)(1)(E)).
Environmental Mitigation Activities in Long-Range Statewide
Transportation Plans: Long-range statewide transportation plans shall
include a discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities,
to be developed in consultation with Federal, State and Tribal
wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(4)
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(4)).
New Consultations: States shall consult ``as appropriate'' with
``State, local, and Federally-recognized Tribal agencies responsible
for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection,
conservation, and historic preservation'' in developing the long-range
statewide transportation plan (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C.
5304(f)(2)(D)).
STIP Cycles and Scope: STIPs are to be updated at least every four
years (compared to at least every two years in ISTEA and TEA-21). In
addition, STIPs must include projects covering four years (compared to
three years in the ISTEA and the TEA-21) (23 U.S.C. 135(g)(1) and 49
U.S.C. 5304(g)(6)).
Visualization Techniques in Long-Range Statewide Transportation
Plan Development: States shall employ visualization techniques in the
development of the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan to the
maximum extent practicable (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(B)(ii) and 49 U.S.C.
5304(f)(3)(B)(ii)).
Publication of the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan: States
shall publish or otherwise make available for public review the long-
range statewide transportation plan ``including (to the maximum extent
practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as
the World Wide Web'' (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(8) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(8)).
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): State must develop a
strategic highway safety plan that identifies and analyzes safety
problems and opportunities in order to use Highway Safety Improvement
Program funds for new eligible activities under 23 U.S.C. 148.
State Highway Safety Improvement Program Projects in the STIP:
Projects or strategies contained in the State highway safety
improvement program from the State strategic highway safety plan must
be consistent with the requirements of the STIP (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(5)).
Indian Reservation Road Projects in the STIP: ``Funds available to
Indian tribes for Indian reservation roads shall be expended on
projects identified in a transportation improvement program approved by
the Secretary'' (23 U.S.C. 202).
Section-by-Section Discussion
Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions
Section 450.100 Purpose
Existing Sec. 450.100 would be largely retained.
Section 450.102 Applicability
Existing Sec. 450.102 would be retained without change.
Section 450.104 Definitions
Existing Sec. 450.104 would be retained, with terms and
definitions, as follows.
We propose a definition for ``administrative modification'' to
describe a type of revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan
transportation plan, TIP or STIP that is not significant enough to
require public review and comment, redemonstration of fiscal
constraint, or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and
maintenance areas). This term, along with ``amendment'' are the two
types of ``revisions.''
``Alternatives analysis'' would be defined to reflect the FTA's
Capital Investment Grant Program (49 U.S.C. 5309).
We propose a definition for ``amendment'' to describe a type of
revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan,
TIP, or STIP that is significant enough to require public review and
comment, redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity
determination (in nonattainment and maintenance areas). This term,
along with ``administrative modification'' are the two types of
``revisions.''
``Attainment area'' would be defined as reflected in the
Transportation Conformity Reference Guide.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Transportation Conformity Reference Guide is available
via the Internet at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/ref_guid/coverpag.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to include ``available funds'' and ``committed funds''
based on the FHWA/FTA Interim Guidance on Fiscal Constraint.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Interim FHWA/FTA Guidance on Fiscal Constraint for STIPs,
TIPs, and Metropolitan Plans (issued on June 30, 2005) available on
the internet at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Conformity,'' and ``conformity lapse'' would be defined as
reflected in the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
We propose a definition for ``congestion management process'' to
reflect the SAFETEA-LU language.
We propose a definition for ``consideration'' to reflect a basic
level of attention to other planning issues, as opposed to more
substantial review under ``consultation'' and ``cooperation,'' in
preparing transportation plans and programs.
``Consultation'' would remain largely unchanged, with minor
revisions to reflect that consultation may occur between more than two
parties.
``Cooperation'' would be slightly revised to reflect current
legislation and practice.
``Coordinated public transit-human service transportation plan''
would be defined to reflect 49 U.S.C. 5316(g)(3).
``Coordination'' would be slightly revised to reflect current
legislation and practice.
[[Page 33515]]
``Design concept'' and ``design scope'' would be defined as
reflected in the EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.101.
We propose to include definitions of: ``environmental mitigation
activities,'' ``Federal land management agency,'' ``Federally funded
non-emergency transportation services,'' ``financially constrained'' or
``fiscal constraint,'' ``financial plan,'' and ``freight shippers''.
The definition of ``Governor'' would be retained.
``Illustrative project'' would be added to reflect new legislative
provisions from the TEA-21 and 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C) and 135(f)(5) and
49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(C) and 5304(f)(5).
``Indian Tribal government'' would be added based on the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a-1).
``Intelligent transportation systems (ITS)'' would be added to
reflect new legislative provisions from the TEA-21 and 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(1)(A) and 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(A) and 49
U.S.C. 5309(e)(10)(B).
We propose to include definitions of: ``interim metropolitan
transportation plan'' and ``interim transportation improvement
program''.
``Long-range statewide transportation'' would be slightly revised
and renamed from the former ``statewide transportation plan'' to
reflect new statutory language from 23 U.S.C. 135(f) and 49 U.S.C.
5304(f).
``Maintenance area'' would be revised to reflect the EPA definition
used in the conformity regulation at 40 CFR part 93.101.
``Major metropolitan transportation investment'' would be removed
to reflect the legislative provision from Section 1308 of the TEA-21.
``Management system'' would be retained in consideration of their
extensive use by States, although the requirement for maintaining them
was eliminated by legislative changes in the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59; November 28, 1995).
``Metropolitan planning area'' (MPA) and ``metropolitan planning
organization'' (MPO) would be revised to reflect legislative changes in
23 U.S.C. 134(b) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(b). Importantly, the term ``MPO''
refers to the policy board for the organization that is designated
under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
``Metropolitan transportation plan'' would remain unchanged, except
for legislative references.
``National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' would be defined, using
legislative language from the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq).
``Nonattainment area'' would remain unchanged, except for
legislative references.
``Non-metropolitan area'' and ``non-metropolitan local official''
would remain unchanged.
A definition is proposed for ``operational and management
strategies'' to reflect the legislative policy directions from the
SAFETEA-LU.
We propose to add definitions for the terms ``obligated projects,''
and ``project selection''.
``Provider of freight transportation services'' would be added as
described for freight-related industries in the Transportation
Warehousing Sector 48-49 of the North American Industrial
Classification System.
We propose to add a definition for ``regional ITS architecture,''
as set forth in the National ITS Architecture Consistency Policy for
Transit Projects (Number C-01-03) and FHWA regulations on ITS
architecture and standards (23 CFR parts 655 and 940).
The definition of ``regionally significant project'' would be
retained, with some clarifying revisions.
We propose a definition for ``Regional Transit Security Strategy''
that is aligned with the concept required by the Department of Homeland
Security.
We propose a definition for ``revision'' that describes a change to
a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or
STIP that occurs between scheduled periodic updates. A revision may or
may not be significant. A significant revision is defined as an
``amendment'' (see above), while a non-significant revision is defined
as an ``administrative modification'' (see above).
``State'' would be unchanged.
The definition of ``State implementation plan'' would be retained,
with some clarifying revisions.
``Statewide transportation improvement program'' would be
unchanged.
``Strategic highway safety plan'' would be defined consistent with
23 U.S.C. 148(b)(6), as amended by the SAFETEA-LU.
``Transportation control measure'' would be defined, as reflected
in U.S. EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93.101.
``Transportation improvement program'' would be revised slightly.
``Transportation management area'' (TMA) would be slightly changed,
particularly to change the provision in which the TMA designation
formerly applied to the entire metropolitan planning area(s).
``Unified planning work program'' would be defined.
We propose a definition for ``update'' that applies to a complete
change to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan,
TIP, or STIP that occurs on a regular schedule as prescribed by Federal
statute. Updates always require public review and comment,
demonstration of fiscal constraint (except for long-range statewide
transportation plans), and a conformity determination (in nonattainment
and maintenance areas).
``Urbanized area'' would be defined, consistent with recent
statutory changes in 23 U.S.C. 134(b).
We propose to add definitions for the terms ``users of public
transportation'' and ``visualization techniques.''
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming
Section 450.200 Purpose
The statement of purpose in Sec. 450.200 would be slightly revised
to better reflect the policy statement contained in 23 U.S.C. 135 and
49 U.S.C. 5304. The proposed revision would support strengthened
linkages between statewide and metropolitan transportation planning,
and include a specific reference to ``accessible pedestrian walkways
and bicycle facilities.''
Section 450.202 Applicability
Existing Sec. 450.202 would be revised to specifically include
MPOs and public transportation operators within the statewide
transportation planning process and to add 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C.
5304 as a statutory citation.
Section 450.204 Definitions
Existing Sec. 450.204 would remain the same, except for the
addition of 49 U.S.C. 5302 as a statutory citation.
Section 450.206 Scope of the Statewide Transportation Planning Process
For purposes of simplification, a majority of the content of
existing Sec. 450.206 would be removed or relocated to other sections
due to outdated or redundant information and the section would be re-
titled. Proposed Sec. 450.206(a) would revise the content in existing
Sec. 450.208(a) by replacing the ISTEA planning factors with the eight
planning factors in 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(1). See
``Key Statutory Changes'' above. The planning factors are based on the
language in the statute, with the exception of minor amplification of
the factor on ``security.''
[[Page 33516]]
In Sec. 450.206(b) we propose to provide general information on
the use of and application of the eight planning factors throughout the
statewide transportation planning process.
In paragraph (c) what we propose is consistent with the language in
23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2) that the failure to
consider any of the factors shall not be reviewable by any court in any
matter affecting a long-range statewide transportation plan, Statewide
transportation improvement program (STIP), or FHWA/FTA planning process
findings.
In paragraph (d) we propose to re-locate and revise the information
and statutory references in existing Sec. 450.218 (Funding). In
addition, this proposed paragraph would establish the statewide
planning work program required by 23 CFR part 420 (for funds under 23
U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C.) as the primary tool to discuss the planning
priorities of the State.
Section 450.208 Coordination of Planning Process Activities
Existing Sec. 450.210 would be redesignated as Sec. 450.208.
Paragraph (a) would be revised to focus on required planning
coordination efforts as defined in 23 U.S.C. 135(b)(1) and 135(e) and
49 U.S.C. 5304(b)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(e) to reflect the
simplification of language provided by the change in planning factors.
A new paragraph (b) is proposed to address the 23 U.S.C. 135(b)(2)
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(b)(2) requirement for the statewide transportation
planning process to be coordinated with air quality planning conducted
by State air quality agencies in the development of the transportation
portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
A new paragraph (c) is proposed to reflect the 23 U.S.C. 135(c)(1)
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(c)(1) provision allowing two or more States to enter
into agreements or compacts for cooperative efforts and mutual
assistance regarding multi-State transportation planning activities.
This paragraph would note that the U.S. Congress reserves the right to
alter, amend, or repeal interstate compacts entered into under this
part.
Paragraph (d) would retain existing rule language providing States
the option to use any one or more of the management systems (in whole
or in part) under 23 CFR part 500 for purposes of carrying out the
statewide transportation planning process.
Paragraph (e) is proposed to encourage States to apply asset
management principles and techniques in establishing planning goals,
defining STIP priorities, and assessing transportation investment
decisions to include transportation system safety, operations,
preservation, and maintenance.
Paragraph (f) is proposed to ensure that statewide transportation
planning processes are carried out in a manner consistent with regional
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) architectures in 23 CFR part
940 (based on the ITS consistency requirement in section 5206(e) of the
TEA-21).
Paragraph (g) is proposed to address the need for transportation
planning processes to be consistent with the development of Public
Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans, as defined in 49 U.S.C.
5310, 5316, and 5317.
Paragraph (h) is proposed to promote consistency between the
statewide transportation planning process and the Strategic Highway
Safety Plan, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 148, as well as with the
Regional Transit Security Strategy, as required by the Department of
Homeland Security.
Section 450.210 Interested Parties, Public Involvement, and
Consultation
Existing Sec. 450.212 would be revised, re-titled, and
redesignated as Sec. 450.210. Overall, existing Sec. 450.212 (Public
Involvement) would be broadened to focus on all facets of participation
and consultation in the statewide transportation planning process,
including the involvement of ``interested parties'' (as defined by 23
U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(A)) and State consultation
with non-metropolitan local officials, Indian Tribal governments, and
the Secretary of the Interior. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraph (a) would continue the requirement for State
public involvement processes that include the ``interested parties''
defined under 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(A).
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ix) provides for periodic State evaluation of
its public involvement procedures. The FHWA and the FTA believe that
the periodic assessment of such processes, including the voluntary
development and use of public involvement process performance criteria,
can help to determine that the effort is well spent and help adjust and
respond to changes over time.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require States to provide for
public comment on existing and proposed procedures for public
involvement in the development of the long-range statewide
transportation plan and the STIP, allowing at least 45 days for public
review and written comment before the procedures and any amendment to
existing procedures are adopted.
Proposed paragraph (b) would retain the content in current Sec.
450.212(h) regarding State development of a documented process(es) that
is separate and discrete from the State's public involvement process
for consulting with non-metropolitan local officials representing units
of general purpose local government and/or local officials responsible
for transportation. In addition, proposed paragraph (b)(1) would retain
the content in existing Sec. 450.212(i) on the periodic review (at
least once every five years) of the effectiveness of the consultation
process(es), including the solicitation of comments (for a period of at
least 60 days) from non-metropolitan local officials and other
interested parties, and the consideration of these comments by the
State in modifying the process(es). Per the existing regulation, the
five year review cycle begins February 24, 2006. The existing
regulation allowed one year to implement the consultation process after
the regulation was published (68 FR 3181, January 23, 2003),
established an initial review after two years, and every five years
thereafter.
Proposed paragraph (c) focuses on State consultation with Indian
Tribal governments and the Secretary of Interior in the development of
the long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP, reflecting
the language and intent articulated in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(C) and
135(g)(2)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2)( C) and 5304(g)(2)( C). This
proposed paragraph also encourages States, as appropriate, to develop a
documented process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key
decision points for consulting with Indian Tribal governments and
Federal land management agencies in the development of the long-range
statewide transportation plan and the STIP. The FHWA and the FTA
believe that a documented process(es) would provide for greater
understanding between States and Indian Tribal governments and Federal
land management agencies on how this consultation would occur. The FHWA
and the FTA recognize an obligation and requirement for Federal
government consultation with Indian Tribes, in addition to State
consultation with Tribes.
[[Page 33517]]
Section 450.212 Transportation Planning Studies and Project Development
Section 1308 of the TEA-21 eliminated the major MIS as a separate
requirement and called for the Secretary to integrate, as appropriate,
the remaining aspects and features of the MIS (and associated corridor
or subarea studies) into the transportation planning and the NEPA
regulations.
Since 1998, the FHWA and the FTA (in cooperation with Federal,
environmental, resource, and regulatory agencies) have undertaken
several initiatives to promote strengthened linkages between the
transportation planning and project development/NEPA processes under
existing legislative, statutory, and regulatory authorities. In
particular, on February 22, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA disseminated
legal analysis and program guidance entitled ``Linking the
Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes.'' \12\ Although voluntary
to States, MPOs, and public transportation operators, this program
guidance was intended to articulate how information, analysis, and
products from metropolitan and statewide transportation planning
processes could be incorporated into and relied upon in the NEPA
process under existing Federal statutes and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This guidance document is available via the Internet at
http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/aa5aec9f63be385c852568cc0055ea16/9fd918150ac2449685256fb10050726c?OpenDocument OpenDocument and is included as Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 450.212 is structured around the guiding principles
and legal opinion reflected in the program guidance.
Section 450.214 Development and Content of the Long-range Statewide
Transportation Plan
Existing Sec. 450.214 would be re-titled. Consistent with existing
Sec. 450.214, proposed Sec. 450.214 would maintain the opportunity
for the long-range statewide transportation plan to be comprised of
policies and/or strategies, not necessarily specific projects, over the
minimum 20-year forecast period. In addition, proposed paragraph (n)
would retain State discretion to identify a periodic schedule for
updating the long-range statewide transportation plan and to revise the
plan as necessary. The FHWA and the FTA recognize that changes to
transportation plans between formal update cycles may be necessary. We
have proposed definitions for the terms ``administrative
modification,'' ``amendment,'' and ``revision'' to clarify these
actions.
Proposed Sec. 450.214 also would be revised to reflect key
provisions in 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(1)(G) and 135(d)(1)(H) and 49 U.S.C.
5304(d)(1)(G) and 5304(d)(1)(H). Proposed paragraph (b) calls for the
long-range statewide transportation plan to include capital,
operations, and management strategies, investments, procedures, and
other measures to ensure the preservation of the existing
transportation system.
The FHWA and the FTA believe improved planning for the operations
and management of the Nation's transportation system is vitally
important to continuing to deliver the safety, reliability, and
mobility for people and freight in the 21st century that the nation
expects. Operations and management (or management and operations) is a
coordinated approach to optimizing the performance of existing
infrastructure and building operational capacity into new projects
through the implementation of multimodal, intermodal, and often cross-
jurisdictional systems, services, and projects. To be effective,
management and operations must be a collaborative effort between
transportation planners and managers with responsibility for day-to-day
transportation operations. Management and operations refers to a broad
range of strategies, such as traffic detection and surveillance, work
zone management, emergency management, and traveler information
services. It also refers to strategies that address the economically
critical area of goods movement, such as improving intermodal
connections and designing and operating key elements of the
transportation system to accommodate the patterns and dynamics of
freight operations. Such strategies enhance reliability and goods
movement efficiency; improve public safety and security; support
homeland security and safeguard the personal security; reduce traveler
delays associated with incidents and other events; and improve
information for businesses and for the traveling public.
In order to draw a strong link between the Strategic Highway Safety
Planning process described in 23 U.S.C. 148 and the statewide
transportation planning process, proposed paragraph (d) states that the
long-range statewide transportation plan should include a safety
element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals,
countermeasures, or projects contained in the Strategic Highway Safety
Plan (SHSP). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above, on the SHSP
requirement.
Proposed paragraph (i) requires that the long-range statewide
transportation plan be developed, as appropriate, with State, Tribal,
and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural
resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic
preservation, including the comparison of transportation plans to State
and Tribal inventories or plans/maps of natural and historic resources
as mandated in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2)(D).
While the title of 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C.
5304(f)(2)(D) is ``Consultation, Comparison and Consideration,'' it is
important to note that the consultation referenced in the statute is
different from the definition of consultation in the existing or
proposed regulation. The statute specifically defines ``consultation''
in this section as involving ``comparison of transportation plans to
State and Tribal conservation plans or maps, if available, and
comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or
historic resources, if available.''
Proposed paragraph (j) requires that the long-range statewide
transportation plan contain a discussion of potential environmental
mitigation activities (at the policy and/or strategic-levels, not
project-specific). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above. In developing
this discussion in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land
management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies, this proposed paragraph
allows States to establish reasonable timeframes for performing this
consultation.
Proposed paragraph (k) identifies the ``interested parties''
defined in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(A) that must
be provided a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed long-
range statewide transportation plan.
Proposed paragraph (l) would implement a provision, added by TEA-21
and retained in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(5) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(5), for an
optional financial plan to be developed to support the long-range
statewide transportation plan. Another provision added by the TEA-21,
retained by 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(5) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(5), and reflected
in proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) states that the financial plan may
include informational ``illustrative projects'' reflecting additional
projects that would be included if other revenue sources were to become
available.
Also reflecting language in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(B)(iii) and 49
U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(B)(iii), proposed paragraph (n) would require the
State to publish or otherwise make available the long-range statewide
transportation plan in electronically accessible formats and means
(such as the World Wide Web). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
[[Page 33518]]
Section 450.216 Development and Content of the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)
Existing Sec. 450.216 would be re-titled. Except for some
restructuring and reorganization, much of the content of existing Sec.
450.216 would remain intact.
Substantive changes reflected in proposed Sec. 450.216 reflect key
legislative and statutory changes resulting from the TEA-21 and the
SAFETEA-LU. Proposed paragraph (a) requires that the STIP cover a
period of at least four years and be updated at least every four years.
Proposed paragraph (e) would require, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204(a) or
(j), that Federal Lands Highway program TIPs be included without
modification in the STIP (directly or by reference) once approved by
the FHWA.
Proposed paragraph (l) would implement a provision, included in the
TEA-21 and retained in 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4)(F) and 49 U.S.C.
5304(g)(4)(F), that a financial plan may be developed to support the
STIP. Proposed paragraph (l) would be consistent with the FHWA/FTA
Interim Guidance on Fiscal Constraint that was issued on June 30,
2005,\13\ and is included in Appendix B. Another provision in paragraph
(l) that was prompted by TEA-21 and retained in 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4)(F)
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(g)(4)(F), states that the financial plan may include
informational ``illustrative projects'' reflecting additional projects
that would be included if other revenue sources were to become
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (m) also would retain the provision in existing
Sec. 450.216(a)(5) that projects included in the first two years of
the STIP in nonattainment and maintenance areas shall be limited to
those for which funds are available or committed. The FHWA and the FTA
believe that retaining this provision is critical to realistic,
meaningful planning and public involvement.
The FHWA and the FTA invite comments on whether the agencies should
require States submitting STIP amendments to demonstrate that funds are
``available or committed'' for projects identified in the STIP in the
year the STIP amendment is submitted and the following year.
Proposed paragraph (o) would allow projects in the first four of
years of the STIP to be advanced in place of another project in the
first four years of the STIP, subject to the project selection
requirements of Sec. 450.220. In addition, proposed paragraph (o)
recognizes State discretion to revise the STIP under procedures agreed
to by the State, the MPOs and the public transportation operators. The
FHWA and the FTA recognize that changes to transportation programs
between formal update cycles may be necessary. We have proposed
definitions for the terms ``administrative modification,''
``amendment,'' and ``revision'' to clarify these actions.
Section 450.218 Self-certification, Federal Findings, and Federal
Approvals
Existing Sec. 450.220 would be re-titled and redesignated as Sec.
450.218. Proposed paragraph (a) would revise existing Sec. 450.220(a)
to reflect that the State must submit the entire STIP to the FHWA and
the FTA for joint approval, at least once every four years, consistent
with the extended cycle established in 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(1) and 49
U.S.C. 5304(g)(1). Furthermore, the State must submit any STIP
amendments for joint approval. In addition, proposed paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(8) would articulate the existing legislative and regulatory
authorities to be included in the State self-certification, including
three additional Federal requirements ((1) the Older Americans Act; (2)
23 U.S.C. 324 regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on
gender; and (3) section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 regarding
discrimination against individuals with disabilities). These
requirements previously existed and the regulations would be revised to
include them.
We also are proposing to modify existing Sec. 450.220(b) slightly
in proposed paragraph (b) to indicate the relationship of the FHWA/FTA
planning finding on the statewide transportation planning process to
self-certifications by the State.
Existing Sec. 450.220(d) would be revised and redesignated as a
new proposed paragraph (c), indicating that STIP extensions (and by
their inclusion, TIP extensions) would be limited to 180 days, with
priority consideration to be given to projects and strategies involving
the operation and management of the multimodal transportation system.
Section 450.220 Project Selection From the STIP
Existing Sec. 450.222 would be re-titled and redesignated as Sec.
450.220 and the references to funding categories updated. This section
generally would remain unchanged, except for two key additions.
Proposed paragraph (d) reflects the requirement in 23 U.S.C.
204(a)(5) that Federal Lands Highway program projects be included in an
approved STIP.
Proposed paragraph (e) would provide the option for expedited
project selection procedures to be used, as agreed to by all parties
involved in the project selection process.
The FHWA and the FTA invite comments on whether States should be
required to prepare an ``agreed to'' list of projects at the beginning
of each of the four years in the STIP, rather than only the first year.
The FHWA and the FTA also invite comments on whether a STIP amendment
should be required to move a project between years in the STIP, if an
``agreed to'' list is required for each year.
Section 450.222 Applicability of NEPA to Statewide Transportation Plans
and Programs
This new proposed section re-states the provisions of the TEA-21
and 23 U.S.C. 135(j) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(j) that any decisions by the
Secretary regarding the long-range statewide transportation plan and
the STIP are not Federal actions subject to the provisions of the NEPA.
Section 450.224 Phase-In of New Requirements
Existing Sec. 450.224 would be revised. This proposed section re-
states the provisions in 23 U.S.C. 135(j)(B) and 49 U.S.C 5304(p)(B)
that State transportation improvement programs adopted on or after July
1, 2007 shall reflect the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and
U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 as amended by the SAFETEA-LU. In addition, this
proposed section clarifies that all State and FHWA/FTA actions on
transportation plans and programs taken on or after July 1, 2007 (i.e.,
updates and amendments) are subject to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134
and 135 and U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 as amended by SAFETEA-LU and these
proposed rules. Provisions for early accommodation of SAFETEA-LU
requirements, as well as its revised update cycles also are described
in this section.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
Section 450.300 Purpose
Existing Sec. 450.300 would be retained. The statement of purpose
would be slightly revised to include a specific reference to
``accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities,'' as specified
in 23 U.S.C. 134(c)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(c)(2).
[[Page 33519]]
Section 450.302 Applicability
Existing Sec. 450.302 would be retained with minor changes to
reflect current statutory citations related to metropolitan
transportation planning and programming.
Section 450.304 Definitions
This section would remain the same, except for the addition of 49
U.S.C. 5302 as a statutory citation.
Section 450.306 Scope of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning
Process
For purposes of simplification, existing Sec. 450.316(a) would be
relocated to Sec. 450.306(a), re-titled and revised by replacing the
16 planning factors from ISTEA with the eight planning factors in 23
U.S.C. 134(h)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(1). See ``Key Statutory
Changes'' above. The planning factors are based on the language in the
statute, with the exception of minor amplification of the factor on
``security.''
Proposed paragraph (b) provides general information on the use of
and application of the eight planning factors throughout the
metropolitan transportation planning process.
Proposed paragraph (c) is consistent with language in 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2) that the failure to consider any of
the factors shall not be reviewable by any court in any matter
affecting a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or the FHWA/FTA
certification of a metropolitan transportation planning process.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require metropolitan transportation
planning processes to be coordinated with the statewide transportation
planning process as specified in 23 U.S.C. 135(b) and U.S.C. 5304(b).
Paragraph (e) is proposed to encourage MPOs to apply asset
management principles and techniques in establishing planning goals,
defining TIP priorities, and assessing transportation investment
decisions to include system operations, preservation, and maintenance,
as well as strategies and policies to support homeland security and to
safeguard the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized
users. Paragraph (f) is proposed to ensure that metropolitan
transportation planning processes are carried out in a consistent
manner with regional ITS architectures in 23 CFR part 940 (based on the
ITS consistency requirement under section 5206(e) of the TEA-21).
Paragraph (g) is proposed to address the need for transportation
planning processes to be consistent with the development of Coordinated
Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans, as required by 49
U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and 5317 as amended by the SAFETEA-LU.
Paragraph (h) is proposed to promote consistency with the
metropolitan transportation planning process and the Strategic Highway
Safety Plan, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 148, and with the Regional
Transit Security Strategy, as required by the Department of Homeland
Security.
Paragraph (i) would re-locate and slightly revise the information
contained in existing Sec. 450.312(f) regarding the designation of
urbanized areas over 200,000 population as transportation management
areas (TMAs), as specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(1) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(k)(1).
Paragraph (j) would re-locate and slightly revise the information
contained in existing Sec. 450.316(c) regarding the opportunity for
MPOs serving non-TMAs in attainment of the NAAQS to propose (in
cooperation with the State(s) and the public transportation
operator(s)) a procedure for developing an abbreviated metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP, for approval by the FHWA and the FTA.
Section 450.308 Funding for Transportation Planning and Unified
Planning Work Programs
Existing Sec. 450.314 would be slightly revised, re-titled, and
redesignated as Sec. 450.308. Proposed paragraph (a) discusses the
categories of Federal funds that may be used for metropolitan
transportation planning.
Proposed paragraph (b) would remove the reference to TMAs contained
in existing Sec. 450.314, with the intent of stressing that all MPOs
have a responsibility to meet the requirements of this section.
However, proposed paragraph (d) would continue the provision in 23
U.S.C. 134(l) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(l) that all MPOs serving non-TMAs may
develop a simplified statement of work in lieu of a UPWP.
Section 450.310 Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation and
Redesignation
Existing Sec. 450.306 would be revised, re-titled, and
redesignated as Sec. 450.310. While much of the content of existing
Sec. 450.306 would not be significantly changed, a number of new
paragraphs are proposed to address issues that have arisen since the
enactment of the ISTEA in 1991, including the impacts of the 2000
decennial census.
Proposed paragraph (c) would provide that specific State
legislation, State enabling legislation, or interstate compact should
be utilized, to the extent possible, for designating MPOs.
Proposed paragraph (d) would mirror the language in 23 U.S.C.
134(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2) outlining the composition of MPOs
that serve TMAs.
Proposed paragraph (e) would provide clarifying information
regarding multiple MPOs serving a single urbanized area, primarily
based on language in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(6) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(6).
Additional language is proposed regarding the development of written
agreements between two or more MPOs serving the same urbanized area to
clearly identify areas of coordination and the division of
responsibilities among the MPOs.
Proposed paragraph (g) would retain existing Sec. 450.306(e)
regarding the opportunity for MPOs to utilize the staff of other
agencies to carry out selected elements of the metropolitan
transportation planning process.
New proposed paragraph (h) clarifies that a designated MPO remains
in effect until it has been officially redesignated.
Proposed paragraph (k) would provide clarifying information on what
constitutes ``units of general purpose local government.''
Proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) would provide clarifying
information on situations that may or may not necessitate MPO
redesignations. Since promulgation of the existing rule in 1993, the
FHWA and the FTA have addressed a number of issues on this topic. On
March 30, 2005, FHWA and FTA issued joint guidance entitled ``FHWA/FTA
Guidance on Designation and Redesignation of MPOs'' \14\ to address
inconsistencies that existed between 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and
23 CFR part 450 on the designation and redesignation of MPOs. This
joint guidance also provided clarifying information and illustrative
examples of scenarios that may or may not trigger MPO redesignations,
based on several actual events that transpired since the enactment of
the TEA-21. The proposed text is based on this previously-issued
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/mpodes.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 450.312 Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries
Existing Sec. 450.308 would be re-titled, redesignated as Sec.
450.312 and revised to reflect the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU changes to
23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
Proposed paragraph (a) would retain the option in existing Sec.
450.308(a) of
[[Page 33520]]
extending the metropolitan planning area (MPA) boundary to the limits
of the metropolitan statistical area or combined statistical area, as
provided in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(e)(2)(B).
Proposed paragraph (b) would replace existing Sec. 450.308(a) and
includes the option to expand the MPA boundary to encompass the entire
area designated as nonattainment for the ozone, carbon monoxide, or
particulate matter NAAQS.
Proposed paragraph (c) allows a MPA boundary to encompass more than
one urbanized area.
Proposed paragraph (d) states that a MPA boundary may be
established to coincide with the geography of regional economic
development and growth forecasting areas. This provision is intended to
provide impetus for strengthening linkages between metropolitan
transportation planning and economic development planning, as
articulated in 23 U.S.C. 134(g)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(g)(3).
Proposed paragraph (e) allows new census designated urbanized areas
within an existing MPA without requiring redesignation of the existing
MPO.
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses situations where the boundaries of
an urbanized area or MPA extend across two or more States to encourage
coordinated transportation planning in multistate areas.
Proposed paragraph (g) explicitly states that a MPA boundary shall
not overlap with another MPA.
Proposed paragraph (h) establishes options for addressing
situations in which part of an urbanized area extends into an adjacent
MPA. The affected MPOs may either adjust their respective MPA
boundaries so that the urbanized area lies only within one MPA or
establish written agreements that clearly identify areas of
coordination and division of transportation planning responsibilities
between the MPOs.
Proposed paragraph (j) provides clarifying information to existing
Sec. 450.308(d) on the need for approved MPA boundaries to be provided
to the FHWA and the FTA in sufficient detail to be accurately
delineated on a map. The FHWA and the FTA would collect this data for
informational purposes only to understand national policy issues such
as the dynamics related to multiple planning geographies (e.g., MPA
boundaries compared to air quality nonattainment and maintenance
areas).
Section 450.314 Metropolitan Planning Agreements
Existing Sec. 450.310 and Sec. 450.312 would be combined,
revised, re-titled, and redesignated as Sec. 450.314.
The content of existing Sec. 450.310(a), (b) and (d) would be
combined and largely retained in proposed paragraph (a), except that
the reference to ``corridor and subarea studies'' in existing Sec.
450.310(a) would be removed. ``Corridor and subarea studies'' are
proposed to be addressed in Sec. 450.318.
Proposed paragraph (a) requires a written agreement(s) by the MPO,
State(s), and public transportation operator(s) that clearly identifies
their mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan
transportation planning process.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require such an agreement(s) to
include specific provisions for the cooperative development and sharing
of information related to the financial plans that support the
metropolitan transportation plan, the TIP and the annual listing of
obligated projects. This proposed paragraph is intended to articulate
the cooperative relationships reflected in the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-
LU.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would encourage the written agreement(s)
to include provisions for consulting with officials responsible for
other types of planning affected by transportation (e.g., State and
local planned growth, economic development, environmental protection,
airport operations, freight movements, non-emergency transportation
service providers funded by other sources than title 49, U.S.C.,
Chapter 53, and safety/security operations). This proposed paragraph is
intended to articulate the extensive cooperative relationships
reflected in the 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
Proposed paragraph (b) regarding interagency cooperation in MPAs
that do not include the entire air quality nonattainment or maintenance
areas would retain existing 450.310(f), except for minor wording
changes for clarification.
Proposed paragraph (c) would retain existing Sec. 450.310(c),
except for minor wording changes for clarification.
Existing Sec. 450.310(d) would be removed since more than one
agreement may be necessary to cover the realm of the various
cooperative working relationships necessary to undertake comprehensive
metropolitan transportation planning.
Existing Sec. 450.310(e) would be removed, since new proposed
Sec. 450.308 contains additional information on cooperative working
relationships to be documented in the UPWP or simplified statement of
work.
Proposed paragraph (d) combines several paragraphs from existing
Sec. 450.310 and Sec. 450.312 regarding cooperative agreements among
planning agencies when more than one MPO serves a single urbanized
area. Proposed paragraph (d) requires coordination of metropolitan
transportation plans and TIPs, and strongly encourages coordinated data
collection, analysis, and planning assumptions across and between the
MPOs, including coordination when transportation improvements extend
across the boundaries of more than one MPA. This proposed paragraph
also allows multiple MPOs to jointly develop a single, coordinated
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire urbanized area.
Proposed paragraph (e) includes provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134(f) and
49 U.S.C. 5303(f) for situations in which the boundaries of the
urbanized area or MPA extend across two or more States.
Proposed paragraph (f) would specifically allow for part of an
urbanized area designated as a TMA to overlap into an adjacent MPA
serving a non-TMA urbanized area without requiring the entire adjacent
urbanized area also to be designated as a TMA. While MPA boundaries may
not overlap, more than one MPO may serve a single MPA. Proposed
paragraph (f) would require TMAs to establish formal agreements that
clearly define specific MPO responsibilities within the urbanized area.
This proposed change acknowledges the geographical boundary
complexities that arose with the 2000 census.\15\ If the affected MPOs
choose to pursue this option, proposed paragraph (f) would require the
development of a written agreement between the MPOs, the State(s), and
the public transportation operator(s) describing how specific TMA
requirements (e.g., congestion management process, surface
transportation program funds suballocated to the urbanized area over
200,000 population, and project selection) will be met for the
overlapping part of the urbanized area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For the 2000 decennial Census, the Bureau of the Census
used a new procedure for defining urbanized areas, based strictly on
the population density of census blocks and block groups. This
resulted in most urbanized areas having very irregular shaped
boundaries, with a large number of these urbanized areas extending
across traditional jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties and
townships), which are often used to define the metropolitan planning
area boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Sec. 450.312(i) has been retained, expanded, and
relocated to proposed Sec. 450.316(c) discussed below.
[[Page 33521]]
Section 450.316 Interested Parties, Participation, and Consultation
Existing Sec. 450.316(b) would be revised, expanded, re-titled,
and redesignated as Sec. 450.316. Since the enactment of the ISTEA in
1991, MPOs have been required to develop and utilize 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 metropolitan
transportation plans and TIPs. Title 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(5) as amended by the SAFETEA-LU expanded the public involvement
provisions by requiring MPOs to develop and utilize ``participation
plans'' that are developed in consultation with an expanded list of
``interested parties'' identified in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(A) and 49
U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(A). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraph (a) would describe the requirement in 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(5)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(B) as amended by the SAFETEA-LU
for developing and using a documented Participation Plan and would
retain much of the content from existing Sec. 450.316(b), with
additional language provided to directly address the requirement in 23
U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5303 for extensive stakeholder
``participation'' that is above and beyond ``public involvement.''
Specifically, proposed paragraph (a) would re-state the requirements in
23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(C) for the MPO to hold
any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times,
employ visualization techniques to describe metropolitan transportation
plans and TIPs, and make public information available in electronically
accessible format and means (such as the World Wide Web).
The FHWA and the FTA recognize that there are myriad ways to use
visualization techniques to better convey plans and programs and there
are wide variations among MPO capabilities and needs, especially
between large, established MPOs and small, new MPOs. States and MPOs
may use everything from static maps to interactive GIS systems, from
artist renderings and physical models to photo manipulation to computer
simulation. Visualization can be used to support plans, individual
projects or Scenario Planning, where various future scenarios are
depicted to allow stakeholders to develop a shared vision for the
future by analyzing various forces (e.g., health, transportation,
economic, environment, land use, etc.) that affect growth.
While the FHWA and the FTA will encourage States and MPOs to
identify and implement the most appropriate visualization technique for
their particular circumstances, we do not propose to specify when
specific techniques must be used. As technology continues to change and
visualization techniques evolve, we anticipate that the techniques will
be varied as they appropriately illustrate the project or plans they
are trying to explain.
The FHWA and the FTA will provide technical assistance and
information to States and MPOs on how to deploy different visualization
techniques and will share noteworthy practices to highlight innovations
that provide the public, elected and appointed officials and other
stakeholders with better opportunities to understand the various
options proposed for plans and programs. The FHWA and the FTA will
share this information through the Transportation Planning Capacity
Building Program, Web sites and publications.
Title 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(B), as
amended by SAFETEA-LU, require development of a participation plan. The
FHWA and the FTA propose that the participation plan include elements
of the public involvement process currently required of MPOs, as well
as new requirements mandated by SAFETEA-LU. Proposed paragraph (a)
identifies the interested parties to be included in the metropolitan
transportation planning process, largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316(b) regarding the public involvement process and
builds on that process to describe the requirements of the new
participation plan.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(v) that would require the participation
plan to demonstrate explicit consideration and response to public input
received during the development of the metropolitan transportation plan
and the TIP.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(vi) that would require the participation
plan to seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally
underserved by existing transportation systems, including low-income
and minority households.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(viii) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 405.316(b)(1)(viii) that would require the participation
plan to provide an additional opportunity for public comment, if the
final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP differs significantly
from the version that was initially made available for public comment.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ix) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316 (b)(1)(xi) that the participation plan be
coordinated with the statewide transportation planning public
involvement and consultation processes.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(x) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(ix) requiring MPOs to periodically review
the participation plan's effectiveness to ensure a full and open
participation process.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) largely retains the language in existing
Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(vii) regarding the MPO's disposition of comments
received on the draft metropolitan transportation plan or TIP as part
of the final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would retain the language in existing
Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(i) requiring a minimum public comment period of 45
calendar days be provided before the initial or revised participation
plan is adopted by the MPO.
Proposed paragraph (b) reiterates the language in 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4) that requires MPOs to consult with
agencies and officials responsible for other planning activities within
the MPA that are affected by transportation in the development of
metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs. See ``Key Statutory
Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) expand upon existing Sec.
450.312(i) regarding MPO consultation with Indian Tribal governments or
Federal land management agencies in the development of metropolitan
plans and TIPs when the MPA includes Indian Tribal lands or Federal
public lands. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraph (e) encourages MPOs to develop a documented
process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key decision
points for consulting with other governments and agencies, as defined
in proposed paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). Such procedures may be
included in the agreement(s) developed under proposed Sec. 450.314.
This proposed paragraph is intended to communicate the importance for
MPOs to consult with a diverse array of State, local, and Indian Tribal
governments and agencies in carrying out comprehensive metropolitan
transportation planning.
[[Page 33522]]
Section 450.318 Transportation Planning Studies and Project Development
Existing Sec. 450.318 would be revised and re-titled. Section 1308
of the TEA-21 eliminated the major investment study (MIS) as a separate
requirement and required the Secretary to integrate, as appropriate,
the remaining aspects and features of the MIS (and associated corridor
or subarea studies) into the transportation planning and NEPA
regulations (23 CFR part 771).
Since 1998, the FHWA and the FTA (in cooperation with Federal,
environmental, resource, and regulatory agencies) have undertaken
several initiatives to promote strengthened linkages between the
transportation planning and project development/NEPA processes under
existing legislative, statutory, and regulatory authorities. In
particular, on February 22, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA disseminated
legal analysis and program guidance entitled ``Linking the
Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes''.\16\ Although voluntary to
States, MPOs, and public transportation operators, this program
guidance was intended to articulate how information, analysis, and
products from metropolitan and statewide transportation planning
processes could be incorporated into and relied upon in the NEPA
process under existing Federal statutes and regulations. Proposed Sec.
450.318 is structured around the guiding principles and legal opinion
reflected in that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This guidance document is available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/aa5aec9f63be385c852568cc0055ea16/9fd918150ac2449685256fb10050726c?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 450.320 Congestion Management Process in Transportation
Management Areas
Existing Sec. 450.320 would be retained as Sec. 450.320, and
revised and re-titled to reflect the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3)
and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3) that TMAs develop and use a congestion
management process. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
The SAFETEA-LU amended 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3)
to require that the planning process in a TMA include a congestion
management ``process'' instead of a ``system''. This section is based
on most of the information on ``congestion management systems''
contained in 23 CFR part 500. Therefore, this proposed rulemaking
transfers the TMA congestion management ``system'' requirements in 23
CFR 500.109 to this subpart. The intent is to reiterate the importance
of the congestion management process to TMA transportation planning and
programming and consolidate this TMA requirement with the rest of the
requirements for TMA planning processes.
In the past the CMS requirement, perhaps because it was a separate
regulation, has often been carried out in a stove-piped manner,
separate from the typical MPO planning process and separate from
transportation system operational and management strategies. The
proposed regulations reflect the goal that CMP be an integral part of
developing a long range transportation plan and TIP for TMA MPOs. The
proposed regulation also reflects the FHWA and the FTA goal to have a
common set of performance measures and a common set of goals and
objectives among the CMP, the long range transportation plan and the
transportation systems operational and management strategies for a
region. Items such as the regional ITS architecture and the selection
process for projects to be included in the TIP should be consistent and
seamless with the CMP. As part of developing the CMP, planners should
be working in collaboration with others in the region, including public
transportation operators and State and local operations staff.
Proposed paragraph (a) re-states the language in 23 U.S.C.
134(k)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3) requiring the development and
implementation of a congestion management process in TMAs.
Proposed paragraph (b) largely retains the definition of a CMS
contained in existing 23 CFR 500.109(a)
Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) retain the specific TMA
congestion management language from existing 23 CFR 500.109(b)(1)
through (b)(6).
Proposed paragraph (d) reflects the language in 23 U.S.C. 134(m)(1)
and 49 U.S.C. 5303(m)(1) regarding the use of the congestion management
process in TMAs designated as nonattainment for ozone or carbon
monoxide. Paragraph (d) would require that any project that would
result in a significant increase in the carrying capacity for single
occupant vehicles (SOVs) be addressed through a congestion management
process.
Proposed paragraph (e) largely retains the language in the latter
portion of 23 CFR 500.109(c) requiring analysis of all reasonable
(including multimodal) travel demand reduction and operational
management strategies for the corridor in which a project that would
result in a significant increase in SOV capacity is proposed in
nonattainment and maintenance area TMAs.
Proposed paragraph (f) reflects the language in 23 U.S.C. 135(i)
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(i) allowing State laws, rules, or regulations
pertaining to congestion management systems or processes to constitute
the congestion management process.
The phase-in period defined in 23 CFR 500.109(d)(2) would be
removed from this proposed section since that date has passed.
Section 450.322 Development and Content of the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan
Existing Sec. 450.316 would be revised, re-titled, and
redesignated as Sec. 450.322, largely to reflect statutory
requirements from the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU.
Proposed paragraph (a) retains the language under existing Sec.
450.316 that the metropolitan transportation plan must address at least
a 20-year planning horizon. Additional clarifying information would
specify that the minimum 20-year horizon applies at the time the
metropolitan transportation plan is approved by the MPO. Proposed
paragraph (a) would clarify that the effective date of the metropolitan
transportation plan in nonattainment and maintenance areas is the date
of a conformity determination issued by the FHWA and the FTA. This
proposed change is intended to eliminate confusion over the validity of
the metropolitan transportation plan in relation to the timing of the
MPO and the FHWA/FTA conformity determinations, as well as provide a
consistent temporal basis to track the new four-year update cycle
established by the SAFETEA-LU.
Proposed paragraph (c) reflects the provision in 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(1) that metropolitan transportation
plans in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas be updated at
least every four years, instead of the former three-year update cycle.
For attainment area MPOs, proposed paragraph (c) would maintain the
previous 5-year update cycle. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above. In
addition, proposed paragraph (c) would provide MPO discretion to revise
the plan as necessary. The FHWA and the FTA recognize that changes to
transportation plans between formal update cycles may be necessary. We
have proposed definitions for the terms ``administrative
modification,''
[[Page 33523]]
``amendment,'' and ``revision'' to clarify these actions.
Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the State air quality agency
coordination of the development of the TCMs in a SIP. This proposed
paragraph also discusses the ``TCM substitution'' provisions in Section
6011(d) of the SAFETEA-LU.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2) notes that the locally preferred
alternative selected from a planning Alternatives Analysis under the
FTA's Capital Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR part
611) need to be adopted by the MPO as part of the metropolitan
transportation plan as a condition for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
As specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(D),
proposed paragraph (f)(3) would require the metropolitan transportation
plan include operational and management strategies to improve the
performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular
congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods.
See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
The FHWA and the FTA believe improved planning for the operations
and management of the Nation's transportation system is vitally
important to achieving the high expectations for safety, reliability,
and mobility for people and freight in the 21st century. Operations and
management (or management and operations) is a coordinated approach to
optimizing the performance of existing infrastructure through
implementation of multimodal, intermodal, and often cross-
jurisdictional systems, services, and projects. To be effective,
management and operations must be viewed as a collaborative effort
between transportation planners and managers with responsibility for
day-to-day transportation operations. Management and operations refers
to a broad range of strategies. Examples include traffic detection and
surveillance, work zone management, emergency management, freight
management systems, and traveler information services. Such strategies
enhance reliability and service efficiency; improve public safety and
security; reduce traveler delays associated with incidents and other
events; and improve information for businesses and for the traveling
public.
Proposed paragraph (f)(7) would require, consistent with 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(B), that the metropolitan
transportation plan contain a discussion of potential environmental
mitigation activities (at the policy- and/or strategic-levels, not
project-specific), developed in consultation with Federal, State, and
Tribal regulatory agencies responsible for land management, wildlife,
and other environmental issues. In addition, this proposed paragraph
allows MPOs to establish reasonable timeframes for performing this
consultation. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraph (f)(10) would implement the provision, in 23
U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(C), for a financial plan
to be developed to support the metropolitan transportation plan. In
addition, proposed paragraph (f)(9), states that the financial plan may
include informational ``illustrative projects'' reflecting additional
projects that would be included if other revenue sources were to become
available as allowed by 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(2)(C). Appendix B to this proposed rule contains a revised
version of the FHWA/FTA Guidance on Fiscal Constraint of Transportation
Plans and Programs, which is based on interim guidance issued by the
FHWA and the FTA.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ FHWA/FTA Guidance on Fiscal Constraint of Transportation
Plans and Programs, June 30, 2005, available via the Internet at the
following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (g) would require that the metropolitan
transportation plan be developed, as appropriate, in consultation with
State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural
resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic
preservation, including the comparison of transportation plans to State
and Indian Tribal inventories or plans/maps of natural and historic
resources, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B)(ii) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(2)(B)(ii). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
While the title of 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4) is
``Consultation'', it is important to note that the consultation
referenced in proposed paragraph (g) is different from the definition
of consultation in the existing or proposed regulation. The statute
specifically defines ``consultation'' in this section as involving, as
appropriate, ``comparison of transportation plans with State
conservation plans or maps, if available, or comparison of
transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources,
if available.''
In order to draw a strong link between the Strategic Highway Safety
Planning process described in 23 U.S.C. 148 and the metropolitan
transportation planning process, proposed paragraph (h) states that the
metropolitan transportation plan should include a safety element that
incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, countermeasures, or
projects for the MPA contained in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
This proposed paragraph also seeks to promote consistency between the
development of metropolitan transportation plans and emergency relief/
disaster preparedness plans, as well as strategies and policies that
support homeland security and safeguard the personal security of all
motorized and non-motorized users (as appropriate).
Proposed paragraph (i) would provide opportunities to comment for
the ``interested parties'', specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5) and 49
U.S.C. 5303(i)(5) in the development of the metropolitan transportation
plan, using the participation plan developed under proposed Sec.
450.316.
Proposed paragraph (j) would require the MPO to publish or
otherwise make available the metropolitan transportation plan in
electronically accessible formats and means (such as the World Wide
Web), to the maximum extent practicable as specified in 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(5)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(C). See ``Key Statutory Changes''
above.
The FHWA and the FTA recognize that there are myriad ways to use
visualization techniques to better convey plans and programs. States
and MPOs may use everything from static maps to interactive GIS
systems, from artist renderings and physical models to photo
manipulation to computer simulation. Visualization can be used to
support plans, individual projects or Scenario Planning, where various
future scenarios are depicted to allow stakeholders to develop a shared
vision for the future by analyzing various forces (e.g., health,
transportation, economic, environmental, land use, etc.) that affect
growth. While the FHWA and the FTA will encourage States and MPOs to
identify and implement the most appropriate visualization technique for
their particular circumstances, we do not propose to specify when
specific techniques must be used. There is too much variation among
MPOs and their circumstances to mandate specific visualization
techniques. As technology continues to change and visualization
techniques evolve, we anticipate that the techniques will be varied as
they appropriately illustrate the projects and plans MPOs are trying to
explain.
The FHWA and the FTA will provide technical assistance and
information to States and MPOs on how to deploy different visualization
techniques and will share noteworthy practices to highlight innovations
that provide the
[[Page 33524]]
public, elected and appointed officials and other stakeholders with
better opportunities to understand the various options proposed for
plans and programs. This information will be shared through the
Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program, our Web sites and
publications.
Proposed paragraph (l) would be added to authorize utilization of
an interim transportation plan during a conformity lapse, with the
intent to continue funding of exempt projects, transportation control
measures (TCMs) in an approved State Implementation Plan, and other
projects that can advance under a conformity lapse in accordance with
40 CFR part 93. Under the provisions of Sec. 176(c) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended by the SAFETEA-LU, nonattainment and maintenance areas
have 12 months from the time the area misses a deadline to determine
conformity of their transportation plan or TIP before a conformity
lapse occurs. During this conformity lapse grace period, all planning
requirements in this subpart and subpart B must still be met.
Section 450.324 Development and Content of the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP)
Existing Sec. 450.324 would be revised and retained as Sec.
450.324. Except for some restructuring and reorganization, much of the
content of existing Sec. 450.324 would remain intact.
Substantive changes reflected in proposed Sec. 450.324 are
consistent with key legislative and statutory changes resulting from
the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU. Proposed paragraph (a) requires that the
TIP cover a period of at least four years and be updated at least every
four years. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraph (d) would modify existing Sec. 450.324(f)(4)
and (f)(5) to clarify that all regionally significant projects, whether
federally funded or otherwise, would be included in the metropolitan
TIP for purposes of transportation conformity, fiscal constraint, and
public disclosure.
Proposed paragraph (h) would implement a provision, retained in 23
U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(B), requiring a financial
plan to be developed to support the TIP. Another provision added by
TEA-21, retained in 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(B),
and also reflected in proposed paragraph (h), states that the financial
plan may include informational ``illustrative projects'' reflecting
additional projects that would be included if other revenue sources
were to become available.
Proposed paragraph (i) would retain provisions in existing Sec.
450.324(e) that explains the fiscal constraint standard for TIPs. The
FHWA and the FTA believe that retaining these provisions are extremely
important to meaningful planning and public involvement to ensure that
TIPs are not merely ``wish lists.''
The FHWA and the FTA invite comments on whether the agencies should
require MPOs submitting TIP amendments to demonstrate that funds are
``available or committed'' for projects identified in the TIP in the
year the TIP amendment is submitted and the following year.
Proposed paragraph (k) would be added to authorize utilization of
an interim TIP during a conformity lapse, with the intent to continue
funding exempt projects, transportation control measures (TCMs) in an
approved State Implementation Plan, and other projects that can advance
under a conformity lapse in accordance with 40 CFR part 93. Under the
provisions of Sec. 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended by the
SAFETEA-LU, nonattainment and maintenance areas have 12 months from the
time the area misses a deadline to determine conformity of their
transportation plan or TIP before a conformity lapse occurs. During
this conformity lapse grace period, all planning requirements in this
subpart and subpart B must still be met.
Section 450.326 TIP Revisions and Relationship to the STIP
Existing Sec. 450.326 and Sec. 450.328 would be combined, re-
titled, and redesignated as Sec. 450.326. The existing regulatory text
would remain largely unchanged. It allows for revision of TIPs through
the addition or deletion of projects, subject to conditions that
protect the principles of fiscal constraint and public involvement. The
FHWA and the FTA recognize that changes to TIPs between formal update
cycles may be necessary. This proposed section intends to clarify that
in nonattainment and maintenance areas, a new conformity determination
is necessary unless the changes to TIPs are administrative
modifications (i.e., addition or deletion of exempt projects).
Consistent with this, proposed paragraph (a) would clarify that a new
conformity determination is necessary when regionally significant non-
exempt projects are added to or deleted from a TIP. Similarly, moving a
project or a phase of a project from year five or later of a TIP to the
first four years would constitute an amendment that would require a new
conformity determination. And, in all areas, changes that affect fiscal
constraint must take place by amendment of the TIP. We have proposed
definitions for the terms ``administrative modification,''
``amendment,'' and ``revision'' to clarify these actions.
Section 450.328 TIP Action by the FHWA and the FTA
Existing Sec. 450.330 would be redesignated as Sec. 450.328. The
existing regulatory text would be changed slightly for clarification or
technical corrections.
A new paragraph (c) would address situations in which a
metropolitan transportation plan is not updated within the cycles
required in the SAFETEA-LU, and proposes limitations on projects that
could be advanced from an existing TIP. In nonattainment and
maintenance areas, Sec. 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended by the
SAFETEA-LU, provides a 12-month conformity lapse grace period from the
time conformity expires on a plan or TIP before an area enters a
conformity lapse. During the conformity lapse grace period, all
planning requirements defined in 450.322 and 450.324 must still be met.
As long as the TIP is still valid, projects can continue to be
advanced, but amendments to the TIP would require a new conformity
determination.
A new paragraph (e) would be added to address the addition of
``illustrative projects'' to TIPs. This proposed paragraph makes it
clear that no Federal action may be taken on these projects until they
become formally included in the TIP, as specified in statute.
Section 450.330 Project Selection From the TIP
Existing Sec. 450.332 would be revised, re-titled, and
redesignated as Sec. 450.330. Existing Sec. 450.332(a), (b), and (c)
would be redesignated as Sec. 450.330(b), (c) and (a), respectively,
with largely citation corrections made to the text. In addition,
proposed paragraph (a) has been revised to reflect the requirement in
23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(A) that the TIP include
projects covering four years. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
With minor citation changes, existing Sec. 450.332(d) and (e)
would be redesignated in proposed Sec. 450.330 paragraphs (d) and (e),
respectively.
The FHWA and the FTA invite comments on whether MPOs should be
required to prepare an ``agreed to'' list of projects at the beginning
of each of the four years in the TIP, rather than only the first year.
The FHWA and the FTA also invite comments on whether a TIP amendment
should be required to
[[Page 33525]]
move a project between years in the TIP, if an ``agreed to'' list is
required for each year.
Section 450.332 Annual Listing of Obligated Projects
This new proposed section addresses the requirements of the TEA-21
and 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(7)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(B) for the
development of an annual listing of projects (including investments in
pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities) for which funds under 23
U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program
year in MPAs.
Proposed paragraph (a) re-states the language in 23 U.S.C.
134(j)(7)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(B) that the annual listing shall
be cooperatively developed by the State(s), public transportation
operator(s), and the MPO, in accordance with Sec. 450.314(a) and
specifies the timetable for publication of the annual listing.
Proposed paragraph (b) specifies that the information contained in
the annual listing of obligated projects be consistent with the
information contained in the TIP and specifies the information to be
included.
Proposed paragraph (c) states that the annual listing of obligated
projects shall be published or otherwise made available by the MPO in
accordance with the participation plan's criteria related to the TIP.
Section 450.334 Self-Certifications and Federal Certifications
Existing Sec. 450.334 would be revised, re-titled, and retained as
Sec. 450.334. Proposed paragraph (a) would revise existing Sec.
450.334(a) to align the transmittals of the State/MPO self-
certifications and the TIP to the FHWA and the FTA, thereby reflecting
the language in 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(1)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(1)(D) that
requires TIPs to be updated at least once every four years. In
addition, proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) would articulate
the existing legislative and regulatory authorities to be included in
the State/MPO self-certification, including three additional Federal
requirements (1) the Older Americans Act, (2) 23 U.S.C. 324 regarding
the prohibition of discrimination based on gender, and (3) section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 regarding discrimination against
individuals with disabilities). These requirements previously existed
and the regulations would be revised to include them.
Proposed paragraph (b) would combine and revise the content of
existing Sec. 450.334(b) through (h), based largely on language in 23
U.S.C. 134(k)(5) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(5) that describes TMA
certification. In addition, proposed paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through
(b)(1)(iii) describe specific FHWA/FTA options on TMA certification.
Section 450.336 Applicability of NEPA to Metropolitan Transportation
Plans and Programs
This new proposed section includes the provisions of the TEA-21 and
23 U.S.C. 134(p) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(p) that any decisions by the FHWA
and the FTA regarding the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP
are not Federal actions subject to the provisions of NEPA.
Section 450.338 Phase-in of New Requirements
Existing Sec. 450.336 would be revised and redesignated as Sec.
450.338. Proposed paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) include the requirements
in Sections 3005(b) and 6001(b) of the SAFETEA-LU that State and MPO
transportation plans and programs adopted on or after July 1, 2007,
shall reflect the provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 as
amended by the SAFETEA-LU. In addition, this proposed section clarifies
that all State, MPO, and FHWA/FTA actions on metropolitan
transportation plans and programs taken on or after July 1, 2007 (i.e.,
updates and amendments) are subject to the provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134
and 49 U.S.C. 5303 as amended by the SAFETEA-LU and these proposed
rules. Provisions for early accommodation of SAFETEA-LU requirements,
as well as its revised update cycles are described in this section.
Proposed paragraph (d) would establish that the congestion
management process for newly designated TMAs shall be implemented
within 18 months of the designation of the TMA. This requirement is
consistent with previous joint guidance provided by the FHWA and the
FTA entitled ``Frequently Asked Questions on Applying 2000 Census Data
to Urbanized and Urban Areas''.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Guidance issued on March 31, 2003, available via the
Internet at the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/faqa2cdt.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A--Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes
The agencies propose to include an Appendix A in the regulations
discussing the mandated linkage between transportation planning and
project development to amplify requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135
and in 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 regarding this linkage.
Despite the statutory emphasis over the last 40 years directing
that Federally funded highway and transit projects flow from
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes, the
environmental analyses produced to meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4231 et
seq.) have often been disconnected from the analyses used to develop
long-range transportation plans, statewide and metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs/TIPs), planning-level
corridor/subarea/feasibility studies, or FTA's planning Alternatives
Analyses. Congress established a strong transportation planning process
for a reason, so that it would lay a foundation and help shape project
decisions. This Appendix reinforces how planning analyses and decisions
should be relied on during the NEPA process. The Appendix presents
environmental review as a continuum of sequential study, refinement,
and expansion performed in transportation planning and during project
development/NEPA, with information developed and conclusions drawn in
early stages utilized in subsequent (and more detailed) review stages.
The Appendix includes a ``Questions and Answers'' section that
addresses common issues regarding linking the transportation planning
and NEPA/project development processes.
Appendix B--Fiscal Constraint of Transportation Plans and Programs
The agencies propose to include Appendix B on fiscal constraint to
amplify requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and in 49 U.S.C 5303 and
5304 associated with fiscal constraint. Appendix B summarizes and
describes in detail the ISTEA and TEA-21 fiscal constraint requirements
to ensure that transportation plans and programs reflect realistic
assumptions on capital, operations, and maintenance costs associated
with the surface transportation system. Appendix B explains how to
estimate ``reasonably available'' future revenues and what is
considered ``Available or Committed'' funds. The Appendix also
describes how to address changes in revenues or costs after the
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP are adopted and the
FHWA/FTA position on how operations or maintenance are to be covered by
fiscal constraint analyses. The Appendix includes a ``Questions and
Answers'' section that addresses common uncertainties
[[Page 33526]]
regarding different fiscal constraint situations.
Section 500.109 Congestion Management Systems (CMS)
The SAFETEA-LU amended 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303 to
require that the planning process in a TMA include a congestion
management ``process'' instead of a ``system''. This proposed
rulemaking transfers the TMA congestion management ``system''
requirements from this section to Sec. 450.320. The intent of moving
the requirements from this section to Sec. 450.320 is to reiterate the
importance of the congestion management process to TMA transportation
planning and programming and consolidate the TMA congestion management
process requirement with the rest of the requirements for TMA planning
processes.
Proposed paragraph (a) largely retains the language contained in
existing Sec. 500.109(a). The remaining portions of existing Sec.
500.109 that pertain to congestion management in TMAs are proposed to
be moved to Sec. 450.320.
The phase-in period defined in existing Sec. 500.109(d)(2) would
be removed because it is no longer necessary.
49 CFR Part 613
This section would be revised to refer to the proposed regulations
in 23 CFR part 450. Because the FHWA and the FTA jointly administer the
transportation planning and programming process, we propose to keep the
regulations identical.
Distribution Tables
For ease of reference, two distribution tables are provided. The
first indicates proposed changes in section numbering and titles. The
second provides details within each section.
Section Title and Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old section New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A Subpart A
450.100 Purpose........................ 450.100 Purpose.
450.102 Applicability.................. 450.102 Applicability.
450.104 Definitions.................... 450.104 Definitions.
Subpart B Subpart B
450.200 Purpose........................ 450.200 Purpose.
450.202 Applicability.................. 450.202 Applicability.
450.204 Definitions.................... 450.204 Definitions.
450.206 Statewide transportation 450.206 Scope of the statewide
planning process: General requirements. transportation planning
process.
450.208 Statewide transportation 450.208 Coordination of
planning process: Factors. planning process activities.
450.210 Coordination................... 450.210 Interested parties,
public involvement, and
consultation.
450.212 Transportation planning
studies and project
development.
450.212 Public involvement............. 450.214 Development and content
of the long-range statewide
transportation plan.
450.214 Statewide transportation plan.. 450.216 Development and content
of the statewide
transportation improvement
program (STIP).
450.216 Statewide transportation 450.218 Self-certifications,
improvement program (STIP). Federal findings, and Federal
approvals.
450.218 Funding........................ 450.220 Project selection from
the STIP.
450.220 Approvals...................... 450.222 Applicability of NEPA
to statewide transportation
plans and programs.
450.222 Project selection for 450.224 Phase-in of new
implementation. requirements.
Subpart C Subpart C
450.300 Purpose........................ 450.300 Purpose.
450.302 Applicability.................. 450.302 Applicability.
450.304 Definitions.................... 450.304 Definitions.
450.306 Metropolitan planning 450.306 Scope of the
organizations: Designation and metropolitan transportation
redesignation. planning process.
450.308 Metropolitan planning 450.308 Funding for
organization: Metropolitan planning transportation planning and
boundary. unified planning work
programs.
450.310 Metropolitan planning 450.310 Metropolitan planning
organization: planning agreements. organization designation and
redesignation.
450.312 Metropolitan transportation 450.312 Metropolitan planning
planning: Responsibilities, area boundaries.
cooperation, and coordination.
450.314 Metropolitan transportation 450.314 Metropolitan planning
planning process: Unified planning agreements.
work programs.
450.316 Metropolitan transportation 450.316 Interested parties,
planning process: Elements. participation and
consultation.
450.318 Metropolitan transportation 450.318 Transportation planning
planning process: Major metropolitan studies and project
transportation investments. development.
450.320 Metropolitan transportation 450.320 Congestion management
planning process: Relation to process in transportation
management systems. management areas.
450.322 Metropolitan transportation 450.322 Development and content
planning process: Transportation plan. of the metropolitan
transportation plan.
450.324 Transportation improvement 450.324 Development and content
program: General. of the transportation
improvement program (TIP).
450.326 Transportation improvement 450.326 TIP revisions and
program: modification. relationship to the STIP.
450.328 Transportation improvement 450.328 TIP action by the FHWA
program: Relationship to statewide TIP. and the FTA.
450.330 Transportation improvement 450.330 Project selection from
program: Action required by FHWA/FTA. the TIP.
450.332 Project selection for 450.332 Annual listing of
implementation. obligated projects.
450.334 Metropolitan transportation 450.334 Self-certifications and
planning process: Certification. Federal certifications.
[[Page 33527]]
450.336 Phase-in of new requirements... 450.336 Applicability of NEPA
to metropolitan transportation
plans and programs.
None................................... 450.338 Phase-in of new
requirements.
Section 500
500.109 CMS............................ 500.109 CMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following distribution table identifies details for each
existing section and proposed section:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old section New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A Subpart A
450.100................................ 450.100. [Revised].
450.102................................ 450.102.
450.104................................ 450.104.
Definitions............................ Definitions.
None................................... Administrative modification.
[New].
None................................... Alternatives analysis. [New].
None................................... Amendment. [New].
None................................... Attainment area. [New].
None................................... Available funds. [New].
None................................... Committed funds. [New].
None................................... Conformity. [New].
None................................... Conformity lapse. [New].
None................................... Congestion management process.
[New].
None................................... Consideration. [New].
Consultation........................... Consultation. [Revised].
Cooperation............................ Cooperation. [Revised].
None................................... Coordinated public transit-
human services transportation
plan. [New].
Coordination........................... Coordination. [Revised].
None................................... Design concept. [New].
None................................... Design scope. [New].
None................................... Environmental mitigation
activities. [New].
None................................... Federal land management agency.
[New].
None................................... Federally funded non-emergency
transportation services.
[New].
None................................... Financially constrained or
Fiscal constraint. [New].
None................................... Financial plan. [New].
None................................... Freight shippers. [New].
Governor............................... Governor.
None................................... Illustrative project. [New].
None................................... Indian Tribal government.
[New].
None................................... Intelligent transportation
system (ITS). [New].
None................................... Interim metropolitan
transportation plan. [New].
None................................... Interim transportation
improvement program (TIP).
[New].
Maintenance area....................... Maintenance area. [Revised].
Major metropolitan transportation Removed.
investment.
Management system...................... Management system. [Revised].
Metropolitan planning area............. Metropolitan planning area.
[Revised].
Metropolitan planning organization..... Metropolitan planning
organization.
(MPO).................................. (MPO). [Revised].
Metropolitan transportation plan....... Metropolitan transportation
plan.
None................................... National ambient air quality
standards. [New].
Nonattainment area..................... Nonattainment area.
Non-metropolitan area.................. Non-metropolitan area.
Non-metropolitan local official........ Non-metropolitan local
official.
None................................... Obligated projects. [New].
None................................... Operational and management
strategies. [New].
None................................... Project selection. [New].
None................................... Provider of freight
transportation services.
[New].
None................................... Regional ITS architecture.
[New].
None................................... Regional transit security
strategy.
Regionally significant project......... Regionally significant project.
[Revised].
None................................... Revision. [New].
State.................................. State.
State implementation plan (SIP)........ State implementation plan
(SIP). [Revised].
Statewide transportation improvement Statewide transportation
Program (STIP). improvement program (STIP).
Statewide transportation plan.......... Long-range statewide
transportation plan.
[Revised].
None................................... Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
[New].
None................................... Transportation control measures
(TCMs). [New].
[[Page 33528]]
Transportation improvement program Transportation improvement
(TIP). program (TIP). [Revised].
Transportation management area (TMA)... Transportation management area
(TMA). [Revised].
None................................... Unified planning work program
(UPWP). [New].
None................................... Update. [New].
None................................... Urbanized area. [New].
None................................... Users of public transportation.
[New].
None................................... Visualization techniques.
[New].
Subpart B Subpart B
450.200................................ 450.200. [Revised].
450.202................................ 450.202. [Revised].
450.204................................ 450.204. [Revised].
450.206(a)(1) through (a)(5)........... Removed.
450.206(b)............................. 450.208(a)(1). [Revised].
450.206(c)............................. 450.208(a)(3).
450.208(a)(1).......................... 450.208(d). [Revised].
450.208(a)(2) through (a)(23).......... 450.206(a)(1) through (a)(8).
[Revised].
450.208(b)............................. 450.206(b). [Revised].
None................................... 450.206(c). [New].
450.210(a)(1) through (a)(13).......... 450.208(a)(1) through (a)(7).
[Revised].
450.210(b)............................. Removed.
None................................... 450.208(b). [New].
None................................... 450.208(c). [New].
None................................... 450.208(e). [New].
None................................... 450.208(f). [New].
None................................... 450.208(g). [New].
None................................... 450.208(h). [New].
450.212(a) through (g)................. 450.210(a). [Revised].
450.212(h) through (i)................. 450.210(b)(1) through (b)(2).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.210(c). [New].
None................................... 450.212. [New].
450.214(a) through (b)(3).............. 450.214(a). [Revised].
None................................... 450.214(b). [New].
450.214(b)(4).......................... 450.214(e). [Revised].
450.214(b)(5).......................... 450.214(c). [Revised].
450.214(b)(6).......................... 450.214(k). [Revised].
None................................... 450.214(d). [Revised].
None................................... 450.214(e). [New].
450.214(c)(1) through (c)(5)........... 450.214(g) and (h). [Revised].
450.214(d)............................. Removed.
None................................... 450.214(i). [New].
None................................... 450.214(j). [New].
None................................... 450.214(m). [New].
None................................... 450.214(n). [New].
450.214(e)............................. 450.214(o).
None................................... 450.214(p). [New].
450.214(f)............................. 450.214(f). [Revised].
450.216(a) last sentence............... 450.216(g). [Revised].
450.216(a)(1) through (a)(2)........... 450.216(a) through (b).
[Revised].
450.216(a)(3).......................... 450.216(k).
None................................... 450.216(l). [New].
450.216(a)(4).......................... 450.216(b). [Revised].
None................................... 450.216(d). [New].
None................................... 450.216(e). [New].
450.216(a)(5).......................... 450.216(m). [Revised].
450.216(a)(6).......................... 450.216(g). [Revised].
450.216(a)(7).......................... 450.216(h). [Revised].
450.216(a)(8).......................... 450.216(i). [Revised].
450.216(a)(9).......................... Removed.
450.216(b)............................. 450.216(j). [Revised].
None................................... 450.216(f). [New].
None................................... 450.216(n). [New].
None................................... 450.216(m). [New].
450.216(c) through (d)................. 450.216(o).
450.216(e)............................. 450.216(c). [Revised].
450.218................................ 450.206(d). [Revised].
450.220(a) through (g)................. 450.218(a) through (d).
[Revised].
450.222(a) through (d)................. 450.220(a) through (e).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.222. [New].
450.224(a) through (b)................. 450.224(a) through (c).
[Revised].
Subpart C Subpart C
450.300................................ 450.300. [Revised].
450.302................................ 450.302. [Revised].
450.304................................ 450.304. [Revised].
450.306(a) through (d)................. 450.310(a) through (d).
[Revised].
[[Page 33529]]
None................................... 450.310(f). [New].
450.306(e)............................. 450.310(g).
None................................... 450.310(h). [New].
450.306(f)............................. 450.310(i). [Revised].
450.306(g)............................. 450.310(j). [Revised].
450.306(h)............................. 450.310(e). [Revised].
450.306(i) through (j)................. Removed.
450.306(k)............................. 450.310(l) through (m).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.310(k). [New].
450.308(a) through (c)................. 450.312(a), (b), and (i).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.312(c). [New].
None................................... 450.312(d). [New].
None................................... 450.312(e). [New].
None................................... 450.312(f). [New].
None................................... 450.312(g). [New].
None................................... 450.312(h). [New].
450.308(d)............................. 450.312(j). [Revised].
450.310(a), (b), and (d)............... 450.314(a). [Revised].
None................................... 450.314(a)(1). [New].
None................................... 450.314(a)(2). [New].
450.310(c)............................. 450.314(c).
450.310(e)............................. Removed.
450.310(f)............................. 450.314(b). [Revised].
450.310(g)............................. 450.314(d). [Revised].
450.310(h)............................. Removed.
None................................... 450.314(f). [New].
450.312(a)............................. Removed.
450.312(b)............................. Removed.
450.312(c)............................. 450.322(d). [Revised].
450.312(d)............................. Removed.
450.312(e)............................. 450.314(e).
450.312(f)............................. 450.306(i).
450.312(g)............................. Removed.
450.312(h)............................. Removed.
450.312(i)............................. 450.316(c) through (d).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.316(e). [New].
None................................... 450.308(a). [New].
450.314(a) through (d)................. 450.308(b) through (e).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.308(f). [New].
450.316(a)(1) through (a)(16).......... 450.306(a)(1) through (a)(8).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.306(b). [New].
None................................... 450.306(c). [New].
None................................... 450.306(d). [New].
None................................... 450.306(e). [New].
None................................... 450.306(f). [New].
None................................... 450.306(g). [New].
None................................... 450.306(h). [New].
None................................... 450.316(a). [New].
450.316(b)(1)(i)....................... 450.316(a)(3). [Revised].
450.316(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(vi)... 450.316(a)(1)(i) through
(a)(1)(vi). [Revised].
450.316(b)(1)(vii)..................... 450.316(a)(2)(). [Revised].
450.316(b)(1)(viii) through (b)(1)(xi). 450.316(a)(1)(vii) through
(a)(1)(x). [Revised].
450.316(b)(2).......................... Removed.
450.316(b)(3).......................... Removed.
450.316(b)(4).......................... Removed.
None................................... 450.316(b). [New].
450.312(i)............................. 450.316(c).
None................................... 450.316(d). [New].
450.316(c)............................. 450.306(j). [Revised].
450.316(d)............................. Removed.
450.318(a) through (f)................. 450.318(a) through (c).
[Revised].
450.320(a) through (c)................. 450.320(a) through (f).
[Revised].
450.322(a) and (e)..................... 450.322(a) through (c).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.322(e). [New].
450.322(b)(1) through (b)(2)........... 450.322(f)(1) through (f)(2).
[Revised].
450.322(b)(3).......................... 450.322(f)(8). [Revised].
450.322(b)(4) through (b)(7)........... 450.322(f)(3) through (f)(6).
[Revised].
450.322(b)(8).......................... Removed.
450.322(b)(9).......................... 450.322(f)(7). [Revised].
450.322(b)(10)......................... Removed.
450.322(b)(11)......................... 450.322(f)(8). [Revised].
None................................... 450.322(g)(1) through (g)(2).
[New].
None................................... 450.322(h). [New].
450.322(c)............................. 450.322(i). [Revised].
[[Page 33530]]
None................................... 450.322(j). [New].
None................................... 450.322(k). [New].
450.322(d)............................. 450.322(l). [Revised].
450.324(a) through (n)................. 450.324(a) through (j).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.324(k). [New].
None................................... 450.324(l). [New].
450.326................................ 450.326(a). [Revised].
450.328(a) through (b)................. 450.326(b) through (c).
[Revised].
450.330(a) through (b)................. 450.328(a) through (b).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.328(c) through (e). [New].
450.324(o)............................. 450.328(f). [Revised].
450.332(a) through (e)................. 450.330(a) through (e).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.332(a) through (c). [New].
450.334(a) through (h)................. 450.334(a) through (b).
[Revised].
None................................... 450.336. [New].
450.336................................ 450.338(a) through (d).
[Revised].
500.109 (a) through (c)................ 500.109(a) through (b).
[Revised].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received on or 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. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the
comment period.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA and FTA have determined preliminarily that this rulemaking
would be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866, and is significant 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. The changes proposed herein would add new
coordination and documentation requirements (e.g., greater public
outreach and consultation with State and local planning and resource
agencies, annual listing of obligated projects, etc.), but would reduce
the frequency of some existing regulatory reporting requirements (e.g.,
metropolitan transportation plan, STIP/TIP, and certification reviews).
In preparing this proposal, the FHWA and the FTA have sought to
maintain existing flexibility of operation wherever possible for State
DOTs, MPOs, and other affected organizations, and to utilize existing
processes to accomplish any new tasks or activities.
The FHWA and the FTA have conducted a cost analysis identifying
each of the proposed regulatory changes that would have a significant
cost impact for MPOs or State DOTs, and have estimated those costs on
an annual basis. This cost analysis is included as a separate document,
entitled ``Regulatory Cost Analysis of Proposed Rulemaking,'' and is
available for review in the docket. Based on the cost analysis, we
estimate that the aggregate increase in costs over current expenditures
attributable to this rulemaking for all 52 State DOTs and 384 MPOs
would be approximately $19.8 million per year, or about $46,000 per
agency, on average. Eighty (80) percent of these costs are directly
reimbursable through Federal transportation funds allocated for
metropolitan planning. [23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)] and for
State planning and research [23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5313].
Furthermore, the SAFETEA-LU significantly increased the mandatory set-
aside in Federal funds for metropolitan transportation planning, as
well as Statewide Planning and Research funding. In addition, the State
DOTs and MPOs have the flexibility to use most other Federal highway
dollars for transportation planning if they so desire. Consequently,
the increase in non-Federal cost burden attributable to this proposed
rulemaking is estimated to be only $4 million per year in total, or
about $9,100 per agency, on average. Therefore, we believe that the
economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal.
The FHWA and the FTA welcome comments on the economic impacts of
these proposed regulations. Comments, including those from the State
DOTs 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, burdens, and
impacts.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354;
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA and the FTA have determined that States and
metropolitan planning organizations are not included in the definition
of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Small governmental
jurisdictions are limited to representations of populations of less
than 50,000. Metropolitan planning organizations, by definition
represent urbanized areas having a minimum population of 50,000.
Therefore the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22,
1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the
expenditure of non-Federal funds by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120.7
million in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which
State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust their
participation in the program in accordance with changes
[[Page 33531]]
made in the program by the Federal government. The Federal-aid highway
program and Federal Transit Act permit this type of flexibility to the
States.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the
FHWA and the FTA have determined that this proposed action would not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism assessment. The FHWA and the FTA have also determined that
this proposed action would not preempt any State law or regulation or
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental
functions. Comment is solicited specifically on the Federalism
implications of this proposal.
By letter dated November 29, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA solicited
comments from the National Governors' Association (NGA) as
representatives for the elected State officials on the Federalism
implications of this proposed rule.\19\ An identical letter was sent on
the same date to several other organizations representing elected
officials and Indian Tribal governments. These organizations were: the
National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), the American Public
Works Association (APWA), the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (AMPO), the National Association of Regional Councils
(NARC), the National Association of Counties (NACO), the Conference of
Mayors (COM), the National Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO), and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A copy of this letter is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to this letter, AMPO and NARC requested a meeting to
discuss their Federalism concerns. On December 21, 2005, we met with
representatives from AMPO and NARC. A summary of this meeting is
available in the docket. Briefly, both AMPO and NARC expressed concern
with the potential burdens that new requirements might have on MPOs,
especially the smaller MPOs. In particular, AMPO and NARC were
concerned with our implementation of the SAFETEA-LU provisions relating
to public participation, congestion management process, and
implementation of planning update cycles. During the meeting, the FHWA
and the FTA indicated that we would consider the issues discussed at
the meeting. In response to the concerns raised, we propose flexible
public participation requirements in Section 450.316, recognizing the
wide variations among MPO capabilities and needs. Regarding the
implementation of planning update cycles, the FHWA and the FTA note
that 23 U.S.C. 134(b) and 135(b) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(b) and 5304(b)
state that ``beginning July 1, 2007, State or metropolitan planning
organization plan or program updates shall reflect changes made by this
section.'' The FHWA and the FTA do not have the legal authority to
allow flexibility with regard to this date.
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 and were carried out as part of the
outreach on the Federalism implications of this rulemaking. The FHWA
and the FTA solicit comments on this issue.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA and the FTA
have determined that this proposal contains collection of information
requirements for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. However,
the FHWA and the FTA believe that any increases in burden hours per
submission are more than offset by decreases in the frequency of
collection for these information requirements.
The reporting requirements for metropolitan planning unified
planning work programs (UPWPs), transportation plans, and
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) are currently approved under
OMB control number 2132-0529 (expiration date: 06/30/2007). The
information reporting requirements for State planning work programs
have been approved by the OMB under control number 2125-0039. The FTA
conducted the analysis supporting this approval 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 314,900 hours on
the planning agencies that must comply with the requirements in the
existing regulation. The FHWA and the FTA conducted an analysis of the
change in burden hours attributed to the proposed rulemaking, based on
estimates used in the submission for OMB approval. This analysis is
included as a separate document entitled ``Estimated Change in
Reporting Burden Hours Attributable to Proposed Rulemaking'', and is
available for review in the docket. The analysis results are summarized
below.
The creation and submission of required reports and documents have
been limited to those specifically required by 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135
and in 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 or essential to the performance of our
findings, certifications and/or approvals. Under the proposed
rulemaking, there would be no significant change in the submission
requirements for UPWPs or State planning work programs; therefore there
is no change in the annual reporting burden for this element. The
proposed rulemaking would require that additional sections be added to
the metropolitan and statewide transportation plans, which we estimate
would increase the required level of effort by 20 percent over current
plan development. However, the proposed rulemaking would also reduce
the required frequency of plan submission from 3 to 4 years for MPOs
located in nonattainment or maintenance areas. One half of all MPOs are
located in nonattainment or maintenance areas and would realize a
reduction in their annual reporting burden. Based on the burden hours
used in the FTA analysis submitted for OMB approval, the decrease in
burden hours for MPOs located in nonattainment and maintenance areas
more than offsets the increase in burden hours associated with the new
sections required in the plans.
The proposed rulemaking requires that State and metropolitan
transportation improvement program (STIP and TIP) documents include 4
years of projects; an increase from 3 years of projects required under
current regulations. We estimate that the inclusion of an additional
year of projects would increase the reporting burden associated with
TIP development by 10 percent over current levels. However, the
proposed rulemaking would also reduce the
[[Page 33532]]
required frequency of TIP submission from 2 years to 4 years for all
States and MPOs. Based on the burden hours used in the FTA analysis
submitted for OMB approval, the decrease in burden hours associated
with the reduced frequency of submission more than offsets the increase
in burden hours associated with including an additional year of
projects in the TIP.
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any
aspect of this information collection, including, but not limited to:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
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 collection of information; and (4) ways to minimize the
collection burden without reducing the quality of the information
collected.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this proposed action for the
purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321), and have determined that this proposed action would not have any
effect on the quality of the environment.
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 would 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.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this action under Executive
Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believe that the proposed
action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
Tribal governments; and would not preempt Tribal laws. The planning
regulations contain requirements for States to consult with Indian
Tribal governments in the planning process. Tribes are required under
25 CFR 170 to develop long range plans and develop an Indian
Reservation Roads (IRR) TIP for programming IRR projects. However, the
requirements in 25 CFR part 170 would not be changed by this
rulemaking. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not
required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001. We have determined that it is
not a significant energy action under that order because although it is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy
Effects is not required.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA and the
FTA also believe that the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) apply to this proposed rule. The
FHWA and the FTA have preliminarily determined that this proposed rule
does not raise any environmental justice issues. The agencies request
comment on this assessment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
23 CFR Parts 450 and 500
Grant programs--transportation, Highway and roads, Mass
transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 613
Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Mass
transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA and the FTA propose to
revise title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 450 and 500 and
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, part 613 as set forth below:
Title 23--Highways
1. Revise part 450 to read as follows:
PART 450--PLANNING ASSISTANCE AND STANDARDS
Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions
Sec.
450.100 Purpose.
450.102 Applicability.
450.104 Definitions.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming
450.200 Purpose.
450.202 Applicability.
450.204 Definitions.
450.206 Scope of the statewide transportation planning process.
450.208 Coordination of planning process activities.
450.210 Interested parties, public involvement, and consultation.
450.212 Transportation planning studies and project development.
450.214 Development and content of the long-range statewide
transportation plan.
450.216 Development and content of the statewide transportation
improvement program (STIP).
450.218 Self-certifications, Federal findings, and Federal
approvals.
450.220 Project selection from the STIP.
450.222 Applicability of NEPA to statewide transportation plans and
programs.
450.224 Phase-In of new requirements.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
450.300 Purpose.
450.302 Applicability.
450.304 Definitions.
450.306 Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process.
450.308 Funding for transportation planning and unified planning
work programs.
450.310 Metropolitan planning organization designation and
redesignation.
450.312 Metropolitan planning area boundaries.
450.314 Metropolitan planning agreements.
450.316 Interested parties, participation, and consultation.
[[Page 33533]]
450.318 Transportation planning studies and project development.
450.320 Congestion management process in transportation management
areas.
450.322 Development and content of the metropolitan transportation
plan.
450.324 Development and content of the transportation improvement
program (TIP).
450.326 TIP revisions and relationship to the STIP.
450.328 TIP action by the FHWA and the FTA.
450.330 Project selection from the TIP.
450.332 Annual listing of obligated projects.
450.334 Self-certifications and Federal certifications.
450.336 Applicability of NEPA to metropolitan transportation plans
and programs.
450.338 Phase-in of new requirements.
Appendix A to part 450--Linking the transportation planning and NEPA
processes.
Appendix B to part 450--Fiscal constraint of transportation plans
and programs.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134-135; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 U.S.C.
5303-5304; 49 CFR 1.48 and 1.51.
Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions
Sec. 450.100 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to provide definitions for terms
used in this part.
Sec. 450.102 Applicability.
The definitions in this subpart are applicable to this part, except
as otherwise provided.
Sec. 450.104 Definitions.
Unless otherwise specified, the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and
49 U.S.C. 5302 are applicable to this part.
Administrative modification means a revision to a long-range
statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that is not
significant enough to require public review and comment,
redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination (in
nonattainment and maintenance areas). Examples of administrative
modifications include minor changes in the cost or initiation date of
included projects.
Alternatives analysis (AA) means a study required for eligibility
of funding under the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) Capital
Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5309), which includes an assessment
of a range of alternatives designed to address a transportation problem
in a corridor or subarea, resulting in sufficient information to
support selection by State and local officials of a locally preferred
alternative for adoption into a metropolitan transportation plan, and
for the Secretary to make decisions to advance the locally preferred
alternative through the project development process, as set forth in 49
CFR part 611 (Major Capital Investment Projects).
Amendment means a revision to a long-range statewide or
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that is significant
enough to require public review and comment, redemonstration of fiscal
constraint, and/or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and
maintenance areas). Examples of amendments include the addition or
deletion of a regionally significant project, or a substantial change
in the cost, design concept, or design scope of an included project.
Attainment area means any geographic area considered to have air
quality that meets or exceeds the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) health standards in the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). An area may be an attainment area for one
pollutant and a nonattainment area for others. A ``maintenance area''
(see definition below) is not considered an attainment area for
transportation planning purposes.
Available funds means, for projects or project phases in the first
two years of the metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
and/or Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in air
quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, funds derived from an
existing source dedicated to or historically used for transportation
purposes. For Federal funds, authorized and/or appropriated funds and
the extrapolation of formula and discretionary funds at historic rates
of increase are considered ``available.'' A similar approach may be
used for State and local funds that are dedicated to or historically
used for transportation purposes.
Committed funds means, for projects or project phases in the first
two years of a TIP and/or STIP in air quality nonattainment and
maintenance areas, funds that have been dedicated or obligated for
transportation purposes. For State funds that are not dedicated to
transportation purposes, only those funds over which the Governor has
control may be considered ``committed.'' Approval of a TIP by the
Governor is considered a commitment of those funds over which the
Governor has control. For local or private sources of funds not
dedicated to or historically used for transportation purposes
(including donations of property), a commitment in writing (e.g.,
letter of intent) by the responsible official or body having control of
the funds may be considered a commitment.
Conformity means the process to assess the compliance of a
transportation plan, program, or project with the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for air quality. The conformity process is defined in the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and governed by the
EPA under its transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93).
Conformity lapse means, pursuant to section 176(c) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), as amended, that the conformity determination
for a metropolitan transportation plan or TIP has expired and thus
there is no currently conforming metropolitan transportation plan or
TIP.
Congestion management process means a systematic approach required
in transportation management areas (TMAs) that provides for effective
management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed and
implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing
transportation facilities eligible for funding under title 23, U.S.C.,
and title 49, U.S.C., through the use of operational management
strategies.
Consideration means that one or more parties takes into account the
opinions, action, and relevant information from other parties in making
a decision or determining a course of action.
Consultation means that one or more parties confer with other
identified parties in accordance with an established process and, prior
to taking action(s), considers the views of the other parties and
periodically informs them about action(s) taken.
Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the
transportation planning and programming processes work together to
achieve a common goal or objective.
Coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan means
a unified, comprehensive strategy for transit service delivery
developed by public, private, and non-profit providers of
transportation and human services, with participation by the public,
including people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with
lower incomes, in order to minimize duplication and maximize collective
coverage. The plan is a requirement under the FTA formula programs for
the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities (49 U.S.C. 5310), Job Access
and Reverse Commute (49 U.S.C. 5316), and New Freedom (49 U.S.C. 5317),
but may include other Federal, State, or local programs.
[[Page 33534]]
Coordination means the cooperative development of plans, programs,
and schedules among agencies and entities with legal standing and
adjustment of such plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general
consistency, as appropriate.
Design concept means the type of facility identified for a
transportation improvement project (e.g., freeway, expressway, arterial
highway, grade-separated highway, toll road, reserved right-of-way rail
transit, mixed-traffic rail transit, or exclusive busway).
Design scope means the aspects that will affect the proposed
facility's impact on the region, 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, safety
features, access control including approximate number and location of
interchanges, or preferential treatment for high-occupancy vehicles).
Environmental mitigation activities means strategies, policies,
programs, actions, and activities that, over time, will serve to avoid,
minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for (by replacing or providing
substitute resources) the impacts to or disruption of elements of the
human and natural environment associated with the implementation of a
long-range statewide transportation plan or metropolitan transportation
plan. The human and natural environment includes, for example,
neighborhoods and communities, homes and businesses, cultural
resources, parks and recreation areas, wetlands and water sources,
forested and other natural areas, agricultural areas, endangered and
threatened species, and the ambient air. The environmental mitigation
strategies and activities are intended to be regional in scope, even
though the mitigation may address potential project-level impacts. The
environmental mitigation strategies and activities must be developed in
consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal wildlife, land management,
and regulatory agencies during the statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning processes and be reflected in all adopted
transportation plans.
Federal land management agency means units of Federal Government
currently responsible for the administration of public lands (e.g.,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and the National Park Service).
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.
Financially constrained or Fiscal Constraint means that each
program year in the TIP and the STIP includes sufficient financial
information for demonstrating that projects can be implemented using
current and/or reasonably available revenues, by source, while the
entire transportation system is being adequately operated and
maintained. Additionally, projects in air quality nonattainment and
maintenance areas can be included in the first two years of the TIP and
STIP only if funds are ``available or committed.''
Financial plans means documentation required to be included with
metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, and STIPs that demonstrates
the consistency between reasonable available and projected sources of
Federal, State, local, and private revenues and the costs of
implementing proposed transportation system improvements, as well as
operating and maintaining the entire transportation system.
Freight shippers means any business that routinely transports its
products from one location to another by providers of freight
transportation services or by its own vehicle fleet.
Governor means the Governor of any of the 50 States or the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Illustrative project means a transportation project that would be
included in a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP for which
financial constraint had been demonstrated if reasonable additional
resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available.
Indian Tribal government means a duly formed governing body for 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, Public Law 103-454.
Intelligent transportation system (ITS) means electronics,
photonics, communications, or information processing used singly or in
combination to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface
transportation system.
Interim metropolitan transportation plan means a transportation
plan composed of projects eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse
and otherwise meeting all other applicable provisions of this part,
including approval by the MPO.
Interim transportation improvement program (TIP) means a TIP
composed of projects eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse and
otherwise meeting all other applicable provisions of this part,
including approval by the MPO and the Governor.
Long-range statewide transportation plan means the official,
statewide, multimodal, transportation plan covering a period of no less
than 20 years developed through the statewide transportation planning
process.
Maintenance area means any geographic region of the United States
that the EPA previously designated as a nonattainment area for one or
more pollutants pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and
subsequently redesignated as an attainment area subject to the
requirement to develop a maintenance plan under section 175(a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended.
Management system means a systematic process, designed to assist
decisionmakers in selecting cost effective strategies/actions to
improve the efficiency and safety of, and protect the investment in the
nation's infrastructure. A management system includes identification of
performance measures; data collection and analysis; determination of
needs; evaluation, and selection of appropriate strategies/actions to
address the needs; and evaluation of the effectiveness of the
implemented strategies/actions.
Metropolitan planning area means the geographic area determined by
agreement between the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the
area and the Governor, in which the metropolitan transportation
planning process is carried out.
Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) means the policy board of
an organization created and designated to carry out the metropolitan
transportation planning process.
Metropolitan transportation plan means the official multimodal
transportation plan covering a period of no less than 20 years that is
developed, adopted, and updated by the MPO through the metropolitan
transportation planning process.
National ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) means those standards
established pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act.
Nonattainment area means any geographic region of the United States
that has been designated by the EPA as a nonattainment area under
section 107 of the Clean Air Act for any pollutants for which a NAAQS
exists.
Non-metropolitan area means a geographic area outside designated
metropolitan planning areas.
[[Page 33535]]
Non-metropolitan local officials means elected and appointed
officials of general purpose local government in a non-metropolitan
area with responsibility for transportation.
Obligated projects means strategies and projects funded under title
23, U.S.C., and title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53 for which the supporting
Federal funds were authorized and committed by the State or designated
recipient in the preceding program year.
Operational and management strategies means actions and strategies
aimed at improving the performance of existing and planned
transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and
maximizing the safety and mobility of people and goods.
Project selection means the procedures followed to advance projects
from the first four years of an approved TIP and/or STIP to
implementation, in accordance with agreed upon procedures.
Provider of freight transportation services means any business that
transports or otherwise facilitates the movement of goods from one
location to another for other businesses or for itself.
Regional ITS architecture means a regional framework for ensuring
institutional agreement and technical integration for the
implementation of ITS projects or groups of projects.
Regionally significant project means a transportation project
(other than projects that may be grouped in the STIP or TIP pursuant to
Sec. 450.216 and Sec. 450.324 or exempt projects as defined in EPA's
transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93) that is on a
facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to
and from the area outside the region; major activity centers in the
region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports
complexes, or employment centers; or transportation terminals) and
would normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan area's
transportation network . At a minimum, this includes all capacity
expanding projects on principal arterial highways and all fixed
guideway transit facilities that offer a significant alternative to
regional highway travel.
Regional transit security strategy means an overarching strategy
for the region with mode-specific goals and objectives as they relate
to prevention, detection, response, and recovery as a sustainable
effort to protect regional transit systems' critical infrastructure
from terrorism, with an emphasis on explosives and non-conventional
threats that would cause major loss of life and severe disruption, as
required by the Department of Homeland Security.
Revision means a change to a long-range statewide or metropolitan
transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that occurs between scheduled
periodic updates. A revision may or may not be significant. A
significant revision is defined as an ``amendment,'' while a non-
significant revision is defined as an ``administrative modification.''
State means any one of the fifty states, the District of Columbia,
or Puerto Rico.
State implementation plan (SIP) means an EPA--approved, State
developed plan mandated by the Clean Air Act for air quality
nonattainment areas that contains procedures to monitor, control,
attain, maintain, and enforce compliance with the NAAQS.
Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) means a
statewide staged, at least four-year, multi-year program of
transportation projects that is consistent with the long-range
statewide transportation plan, metropolitan transportation plans, and
TIPs, and required for projects to be eligible for funding under 23
U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
Strategic highway safety plan means a plan developed by the State
DOT in accordance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(6).
Transportation control measure (TCM) means any measure that is
specifically identified and committed to in the applicable SIP that is
either one of the types listed in section 108 of the Clean Air Act 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 that control the emissions from vehicles
under fixed traffic conditions are not TCMs.
Transportation improvement program (TIP) means a staged, at least
four-year, multi-year program of projects developed and formally
adopted by an MPO as part of the metropolitan transportation planning
process that is consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan,
and required for projects to be eligible for funding under 23 U.S.C.
and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
Transportation management area (TMA) means an urbanized area with a
population over 200,000, as defined by the Bureau of the Census and
designated by the Secretary of Transportation, or any additional area
where TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the MPO and
designated by the Secretary of Transportation.
Unified planning work program (UPWP) means a statement of work
identifying the planning priorities and activities to be carried out
within a metropolitan planning area. At a minimum, a UPWP includes a
description of the planning work and resulting products, who will
perform the work, time frames for completing the work, the cost of the
work, and the source(s) of funds.
Update means a complete change to a long-range statewide or
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP in order to meet the
regular schedule as prescribed by Federal statute. Updates always
require public review and comment, demonstration of fiscal constraint
(except for long-range statewide transportation plans), and a
conformity determination (in nonattainment and maintenance areas).
Urbanized area means a geographic area with a population of 50,000
or more, as designated by the Bureau of the Census.
Users of public transportation means any person, or groups
representing such persons, who use transportation open to the general
public, other than taxis and other privately funded and operated
vehicles.
Visualization techniques means methods employed by States and MPOs
in the development of transportation plans and programs with the
public, elected and appointed officials, and other stakeholders in a
clear and easily accessible format such as maps, pictures, and/or
displays, to promote improved understanding of existing or proposed
transportation plans and programs.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming
Sec. 450.200 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5304, as amended, which require each State to
carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive statewide
multimodal transportation planning process, including the development
of a long-range statewide transportation plan and statewide
transportation improvement program (STIP), that facilitates the safe
and efficient management, operation, and development of surface
transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and
freight (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle
transportation facilities) and that fosters economic growth and
development within and between States and urbanized areas, while
minimizing transportation-related
[[Page 33536]]
fuel consumption and air pollution in all areas of the State, including
those areas subject to the metropolitan transportation planning
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
Sec. 450.202 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to States and any
other organizations or entities (e.g., metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) and public transportation operators) that are
responsible for satisfying the requirements for transportation plans
and programs throughout the State pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49
U.S.C. 5304.
Sec. 450.204 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 subpart
as so defined.
Sec. 450.206 Scope of the statewide transportation planning process.
(a) Each State shall carry out a continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive statewide transportation planning process that provides
for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and
services that will address the following factors:
(1) Support the economic vitality of the United States, the States,
metropolitan areas, and non-metropolitan areas, especially by enabling
global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
(2) Increase the safety of the transportation system for all
motorized and non-motorized users;
(3) Increase the ability of the transportation system to support
homeland security and to safeguard the personal security of all
motorized and non-motorized users;
(4) Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight;
(5) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy
conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency
between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth
and economic development patterns;
(6) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation
system, across and between modes throughout the State, for people and
freight;
(7) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
(8) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation
system.
(b) Consideration of the planning factors in paragraph (a) of this
section shall be reflected, as appropriate, in all aspects of the
statewide transportation planning process, including activities such as
the formulation of goals, objectives, performance measures, and
evaluation criteria for use in developing the long-range statewide
transportation plan; identification of prioritization criteria for
projects and strategies reflected in the STIP; and development of
short-range planning studies, strategic planning and/or policy studies,
or transportation needs studies.
(c) The failure to consider any factor specified in paragraph (a)
of this section shall not be reviewable by any court in any matter
affecting a long-range statewide transportation plan, STIP, project or
strategy, or the FHWA/FTA planning process findings.
(d) Funds provided under 23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5305(e) are
available to the State to accomplish activities in this subpart. At the
State's option, funds provided under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) and (3) and
105 and 49 U.S.C. 5307 may also be used. Statewide transportation
planning activities performed with funds provided under title 23,
U.S.C., and 49 U.S.C., Chapter 53 shall be documented in a statewide
planning work program in accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR part
420. The work program should include a discussion of the transportation
planning priorities facing the State.
Sec. 450.208 Coordination of planning process activities.
(a) In carrying out the statewide transportation planning process,
each State shall:
(1) Coordinate planning carried out under this subpart with the
metropolitan transportation planning activities carried out under
subpart C of this part for metropolitan areas of the State. The State
is encouraged to rely on information, studies, or analyses provided by
MPOs for portions of the transportation system located in metropolitan
planning areas;
(2) Coordinate planning carried out under this subpart with
statewide trade and economic development planning activities and
related multistate planning efforts;
(3) Coordinate planning carried out under this subpart with
planning by Federal land management agencies that have jurisdiction
over land within the boundaries of the State;
(4) Consider the concerns of local elected and appointed officials
with responsibilities for transportation in non-metropolitan areas;
(5) Consider the concerns of Indian Tribal governments that have
jurisdiction over land within the boundaries of the State;
(6) Coordinate transportation plans, programs, and planning
activities with related planning activities being conducted outside of
metropolitan planning areas and between States; and
(7) Establish a forum for coordinating data collection and analyses
to support statewide transportation planning and programming priorities
and decisions.
(b) The State air quality agency shall coordinate with the State
department of transportation (State DOT) to develop the transportation
portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) consistent with the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
(c) Two or more States may enter into agreements or compacts, not
in conflict with any law of the United States, for cooperative efforts
and mutual assistance in support of activities under this subpart
related to interstate areas and localities in the States and
establishing authorities the States consider desirable for making the
agreements and compacts effective. However, the U. S. Congress reserves
the right to alter, amend, or repeal interstate compacts entered into
under this part.
(d) States may use any one or more of the management systems (in
whole or in part) described in 23 CFR part 500.
(e) States are encouraged to apply asset management principles and
techniques in establishing planning goals, defining STIP priorities,
and assessing transportation investment decisions, including
transportation system safety, operations, preservation, and
maintenance.
(f) The statewide transportation planning process shall be
consistent with the development of applicable regional intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) architectures, as defined in 23 CFR part
940.
(g) The statewide transportation planning process should be
consistent with the development of Coordinated Public Transit-Human
Services Transportation Plans, as required by 49 U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and
5317.
(h) The statewide transportation planning process should be
consistent with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, as specified in 23
U.S.C. 148, and the Regional Transit Security Strategy as required by
the Department of Homeland Security.
Sec. 450.210 Interested parties, public involvement, and
consultation.
(a) In carrying out the statewide transportation planning process,
including development of the long-range statewide transportation plan
and the STIP, the State shall develop and use a documented public
involvement
[[Page 33537]]
process that provides opportunities for public review and comment at
key decision points.
(1) The State's public involvement process at a minimum shall:
(i) Establish early and continuous public involvement opportunities
that provide timely information about transportation issues and
decisionmaking processes to citizens, affected public agencies,
representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers,
private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public
transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and
bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled,
providers of freight transportation services, and other interested
parties;
(ii) Provide reasonable public access to technical and policy
information used in the development of the long-range statewide
transportation plan and the STIP;
(iii) Provide adequate public notice of public involvement
activities and time for public review and comment at key decision
points, including but not limited to a reasonable opportunity to
comment on the proposed long-range statewide transportation plan and
STIP;
(iv) To the maximum extent practicable, ensure that public meetings
are held at convenient and accessible locations and times;
(v) To the maximum extent practicable, use visualization techniques
to describe the proposed long-range statewide transportation plan and
supporting studies;
(vi) To the maximum extent practicable, make public information
available in electronically accessible format and means, such as the
World Wide Web, as appropriate to afford reasonable opportunity for
consideration of public information;
(vii) Demonstrate explicit consideration and response to public
input during the development of the long-range statewide transportation
plan and STIP;
(viii) Include a process for seeking out and considering the needs
of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems,
such as low-income and minority households, who may face challenges
accessing employment and other services; and
(ix) Provide for the periodic review of the effectiveness of the
public involvement process to ensure that the process provides full and
open access to all interested parties and revise the process, as
appropriate.
(2) The State shall provide for public comment on existing and
proposed processes for public involvement in the development of the
long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP. At a minimum,
the State shall allow 45 calendar days for public review and written
comment before the procedures and any major revisions to existing
procedures are adopted. The State shall provide copies of the approved
public involvement process document(s) to the FHWA and the FTA for
informational purposes.
(b) The State shall provide for non-metropolitan local official
participation in the development of the long-range statewide
transportation plan and the STIP. The State shall have a documented
process(es) for consulting with non-metropolitan local officials
representing units of general purpose local government and/or local
officials with responsibility for transportation that is separate and
discrete from the public involvement process and provides an
opportunity for their participation in the development of the long-
range statewide transportation plan and the STIP. Although the FHWA and
the FTA shall not review or approve this consultation process(es),
copies of the process document(s) shall be provided to the FHWA and the
FTA for informational purposes.
(1) At least once every five years (as of February 24, 2006), the
State shall review and solicit comments from non-metropolitan local
officials and other interested parties for a period of not less than 60
calendar days regarding the effectiveness of the consultation process
and any proposed revisions. A specific request for comments shall be
directed to the State association of counties, State municipal league,
regional planning agencies, or directly to non-metropolitan local
officials.
(2) The State, at its discretion, shall be responsible for
determining whether to adopt any proposed revisions. If a proposed
revision is not adopted, the State shall make publicly available its
reasons for not accepting the proposed revision, including notification
to non-metropolitan local officials or their associations.
(c) For each area of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian
Tribal government, the State shall develop the long-range statewide
transportation plan and STIP in consultation with the Tribal government
and the Secretary of Interior. States are encouraged to develop a
documented process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key
decision points for consulting with Indian Tribal governments and
Federal land management agencies in the development of the long-range
statewide transportation plan and the STIP.
Sec. 450.212 Transportation planning studies and project development.
(a) An MPO(s), State(s), and/or public transportation operator(s)
may undertake a corridor or subarea planning study as part of the
statewide transportation planning process. The results of these
transportation planning studies may be incorporated into the overall
project development process to the extent that they meet the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and associated implementing regulations (23
CFR part 771 and 40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Specifically, these corridor
or subarea studies maybe used to produce any of the following for a
proposed transportation project:
(1) Purpose and need or goals and objective statement(s);
(2) General travel corridor and/or general mode(s) definition
(i.e., highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination);
(3) Preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of
unreasonable alternatives;
(4) Description of the affected environment; and/or
(5) Preliminary identification of environmental impacts and
environmental mitigation.
(b) Publicly available documents produced by, or in support of, the
transportation planning process described in this subpart may be
incorporated by reference into subsequent NEPA documents, in accordance
with 40 CFR 1502.21, to the extent that:
(1) The NEPA lead agencies agree that such incorporation will aid
in establishing or evaluating the purpose and need for the Federal
action, reasonable alternatives, cumulative or other impacts on the
human and natural environment, or mitigation of these impacts; and
(2) The corridor or subarea planning study is conducted with:
(i) Involvement of interested State, local, Tribal, and Federal
agencies;
(ii) Public review;
(iii) Continual opportunity to comment during the metropolitan
transportation planning process and development of the corridor or
subarea planning study;
(iv) Documentation of relevant decisions in a form that is
identifiable and available for review during the NEPA scoping process
and can be appended to or referenced in the NEPA document; and
(v) The review of the FHWA and the FTA, as appropriate.
[[Page 33538]]
(c) By agreement of the NEPA lead agencies, the above integration
may be accomplished through incorporating the subarea or corridor
planning study into the draft Environmental Impact Statement or
Environmental Assessment and other means of incorporation by reference
that the NEPA lead agencies deem appropriate. Additional details on
linkages between the transportation planning and project development/
NEPA processes is contained in Appendix A to this part.
Sec. 450.214 Development and content of the long-range statewide
transportation plan.
(a) The State shall develop a long-range statewide transportation
plan, with a minimum 20-year forecast period, that provides for the
development and implementation of the multimodal transportation system
for the State. The long-range statewide transportation plan shall
consider and include, as applicable, elements and connections between
public transportation, non-motorized modes, rail, commercial motor
vehicle, waterway, and aviation facilities, particularly with respect
to intercity travel.
(b) The long-range statewide transportation plan should include
capital, operations and management strategies, investments, procedures,
and other measures to ensure the preservation and most efficient use of
the existing transportation system.
(c) The long-range statewide transportation plan shall reference,
summarize, or contain any applicable short-range planning studies;
strategic planning and/or policy studies; transportation needs studies;
management systems reports; emergency relief and disaster preparedness
plans; and any statements of policies, goals, and objectives on issues
(e.g., transportation, safety, economic development, social and
environmental effects, or energy) that were relevant to the development
of the long-range statewide transportation plan.
(d) The long-range statewide transportation plan should include a
safety element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals,
countermeasures, or projects contained in the Strategic Highway Safety
Plan required by 23 U.S.C. 148.
(e) The long-range statewide transportation plan should include a
security element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals,
or projects set forth in the Regional Transit Security Strategy(ies),
as required by the Department of Homeland Security.
(f) Within each metropolitan area of the State, the long-range
statewide transportation plan shall be developed in cooperation with
the affected MPOs.
(g) For non-metropolitan areas, the long-range statewide
transportation plan shall be developed in consultation with affected
non-metropolitan officials with responsibility for transportation using
the State's consultation process(es) established under Sec.
450.210(b).
(h) For each area of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian
Tribal government, the long-range statewide transportation plan shall
be developed in consultation with the Tribal government and the
Secretary of the Interior consistent with Sec. 450.210(c).
(i) The long-range statewide transportation plan shall be
developed, as appropriate, in consultation with State, Tribal, and
local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources,
environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation. This
consultation shall involve comparison of transportation plans to State
and Tribal conservation plans or maps, if available, and comparison of
transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources,
if available.
(j) A long-range statewide transportation plan shall include a
discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities and
potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities
that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the
environmental functions affected by implementation of the plan. The
discussion shall be developed in consultation with Federal, State, and
Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies. The State
may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this consultation.
Additional information on linkages between the transportation planning
and project development/NEPA processes is contained in Appendix A to
this part.
(k) In developing and updating the long-range statewide
transportation plan, the State shall provide citizens, affected public
agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight
shippers, private providers of transportation, representatives of users
of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian
walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the
disabled, providers of freight transportation services, and other
interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
proposed long-range statewide transportation plan. In carrying out
these requirements, the State shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
utilize the public involvement process described under Sec.
450.210(a).
(l) The long-range statewide transportation plan may include a
financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted long-range statewide
transportation plan can be implemented, indicates resources from public
and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available
to carry out the plan, and recommends any additional financing
strategies for needed projects and programs. The financial plan may
include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be
included in the adopted long-range statewide transportation plan if
additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were
available.
(m) The State shall not be required to select any project from the
illustrative list of additional projects included in the financial plan
described in paragraph (k) of this section.
(n) The long-range statewide transportation plan shall be published
or otherwise made available, including (to the maximum extent
practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as
the World Wide Web, as described in Sec. 450.210(a).
(o) The State shall continually evaluate, revise, and periodically
update the long-range statewide transportation plan, as appropriate,
using the procedures in this section for development and establishment
of the long-range statewide transportation plan.
(p) Copies of any new or revised long-range statewide
transportation plan documents shall be provided to the FHWA and the FTA
for informational purposes.
Sec. 450.216 Development and content of the statewide transportation
improvement program (STIP).
(a) The State shall develop a statewide transportation improvement
program (STIP) for all areas of the State. The STIP shall cover a
period of not less than four years and be updated at least every four
years, or more frequently if the Governor elects a more frequent update
cycle. If the STIP covers more than four years, the FHWA and the FTA
will consider the projects in the additional years as informational. In
case of difficulties developing a portion of the STIP for a particular
area (e.g., metropolitan planning area, nonattainment or maintenance
area, or Indian Tribal lands), a partial STIP covering the rest of the
State may be developed.
[[Page 33539]]
(b) For each metropolitan area in the State, the STIP shall be
developed in cooperation with the MPO designated for the metropolitan
area. Each metropolitan transportation improvement program (TIP) shall
be included without change in the STIP, directly or by reference, after
approval of the TIP by the MPO and the Governor. A metropolitan TIP in
a nonattainment or maintenance area is subject to an FHWA/FTA
conformity finding before inclusion in the STIP. In areas outside a
metropolitan planning area but within an air quality nonattainment or
maintenance area containing any part of a metropolitan area, projects
must be consistent with the regional emissions analysis that supported
the conformity determination of the associated metropolitan TIP.
(c) For each non-metropolitan area in the State, the STIP shall be
developed in consultation with affected non-metropolitan local
officials with responsibility for transportation using the State's
consultation process(es) established under Sec. 450.210.
(d) For each area of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian
Tribal government, the STIP shall be developed in consultation with the
Tribal government and the Secretary of the Interior.
(e) Federal Lands Highway program TIPs shall be included without
change in the STIP, directly or by reference, once approved by the FHWA
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204(a) or (j).
(f) The Governor shall provide all interested parties with a
reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed STIP as required by
Sec. 450.210(a).
(g) The STIP shall include federally supported capital and non-
capital surface transportation projects (or phases of projects) within
the boundaries of the State proposed for funding under title 23,
U.S.C., and title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53 (including transportation
enhancements; Federal Lands Highway program projects; safety projects
included in the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan; trails projects;
pedestrian walkways; and bicycle facilities), but excluding:
(1) Safety projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 31102;
(2) Metropolitan planning projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(f),
49 U.S.C. 5305(d), and 49 U.S.C. 5339;
(3) State planning and research projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 505
and 49 U.S.C. 5305(e);
(4) At the State's discretion, State planning and research projects
funded with National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program,
and/or Equity Bonus funds;
(5) Emergency relief projects (except those involving substantial
functional, locational, or capacity changes);
(6) National planning and research projects funded under 49 U.S.C.
5314; and
(7) Project management oversight projects funded under 49 U.S.C.
5327.
(h) The STIP shall contain all regionally significant projects
requiring an action by the FHWA or the FTA whether or not the projects
are to be funded with 23 U.S.C., Chapters 1 and 2 or title 49, U.S.C.,
Chapter 53 funds (e.g., addition of an interchange to the Interstate
System with State, local, and/or private funds, and congressionally
designated projects not funded under title 23, U.S.C., or title 49,
U.S.C., Chapter 53). For informational purposes, the STIP should
include all regionally significant projects proposed to be funded with
Federal funds other than those administered by the FHWA or the FTA. In
addition, the STIP should include, for informational purposes (if
appropriate and included in any TIPs), all regionally significant
projects to be funded with non-Federal funds.
(i) The STIP shall include for each project or phase (e.g.,
preliminary engineering, environment/NEPA, right-of-way, design, or
construction) the following:
(1) Sufficient descriptive material (i.e., type of work, termini,
and length) to identify the project or phase;
(2) Estimated total project cost, or a project cost range, which
may extend beyond the four years of the STIP;
(3) The amount of funds proposed to be obligated during each
program year for the project or phase, by sources of Federal and non-
Federal funds; and
(4) Identification of the agencies responsible for carrying out the
project or phase.
(j) 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 771.117(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part 93.
In nonattainment and maintenance areas, classifications must be
consistent with the ``exempt project'' classifications contained in the
EPA's transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93). In
addition, projects proposed for funding under title 23, U.S.C., Chapter
2 that are not regionally significant may be grouped in one line item
or identified individually in the STIP.
(k) Each project or project phase included in the STIP shall be
consistent with the long-range statewide transportation plan developed
under Sec. 450.214 and, in metropolitan planning areas, consistent
with an approved metropolitan transportation plan developed under Sec.
450.322.
(l) The STIP may include a financial plan that demonstrates how the
approved STIP can be implemented, indicates resources from public and
private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to
carry out the STIP, and recommends any additional financing strategies
for needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, for
illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in
the adopted STIP 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 FHWA and the FTA on
the STIP. Additional criteria for STIP financial constraint and
financial plans that support the STIP are contained in Appendix B to
this part.
(m) The STIP shall include 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. In nonattainment and maintenance areas,
projects included in the first two years of the STIP shall be limited
to those for which funds are available or committed. Financial
constraint of the STIP shall be demonstrated and maintained by year and
shall include sufficient financial information to demonstrate which
projects are to be implemented using current and/or reasonably
available revenues, by source, and which projects are to be implemented
using proposed revenue sources while the entire transportation system
is being adequately operated and maintained. In the case of proposed
funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be
identified, preferably in the financial plan consistent with paragraph
(l) of this section.
(n) In areas outside a metropolitan planning area but inside a
nonattainment or maintenance area that contains any part of a
metropolitan area, projects must be consistent with the regional
emissions analysis that supported the conformity determination of the
associated metropolitan TIP before they are added to the STIP.
(o) Projects in any of the first four years of the STIP may be
advanced in place of another project in the first four
[[Page 33540]]
years of the STIP, subject to the project selection requirements of
Sec. 450.220. In addition, the STIP may be revised at any time under
procedures agreed to by the State, MPO(s), and public transportation
operator(s) consistent with the STIP development procedures established
in this section, as well as the procedures for participation by
interested parties (see Sec. 450.210(a)), subject to FHWA/FTA approval
(see Sec. 450.218). All changes that affect fiscal constraint must
take place by amendment of the STIP.
Sec. 450.218 Self-certifications, Federal findings, and Federal
approvals.
(a) At least every four years, the State shall submit an updated
STIP concurrently to the FHWA and the FTA for joint approval. STIP
amendments shall also be submitted for joint approval. At the time the
entire proposed STIP is submitted 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 and 5304, and this part;
(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2000d-1), 49 CFR part 21, and 23 CFR parts 200 and 300;
(3) Section 1101(b) of the SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59) and 49 CFR
part 26 regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises
in USDOT funded projects;
(4) The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38;
(5) 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 40 CFR part 93;
(6) The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101),
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance;
(7) Section 324 of title 23, U.S.C., regarding the prohibition of
discrimination based on gender; and
(8) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794)
and 49 CFR part 35 regarding discrimination against individuals with
disabilities.
(b) The FHWA and the FTA shall review the STIP at least every four
years, or at the time the amended STIP is submitted, (based on self-
certifications and appropriate reviews established and conducted by the
FHWA and the FTA) and make a joint finding on the extent to which the
projects in the STIP are based on a statewide transportation planning
process that meets or substantially meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C.
134 and 135, 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and subparts A, B, and C of this
part. Approval of the STIP by the FHWA and the FTA, in its entirety or
in part, will be based upon the results of this joint finding.
(1) If the FHWA and the FTA determine that the STIP or amended STIP
are based on a statewide transportation planning process that meets or
substantially meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135, 49 U.S.C. 5304,
and this part, the FHWA and the FTA may jointly:
(i) Approve the entire STIP;
(ii) Approve the STIP subject to certain corrective actions being
taken; or
(iii) Under special circumstances, approve a partial STIP covering
only a portion of the State.
(2) If the FHWA and the FTA jointly determine and document in the
planning finding that a submitted STIP or amended STIP does not
substantially meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135, 49 U.S.C. 5304,
and this part for any identified categories of projects, the FHWA and
the FTA will not approve the STIP.
(c) The approval period for a new or amended STIP shall not exceed
four years. If a State demonstrates, in writing, that extenuating
circumstances will delay the submittal of a new or amended STIP, the
FHWA and the FTA will consider and take appropriate action on a request
to extend the approval beyond four years for all or part of the STIP
for a period not to exceed 180 days. In these cases, priority
consideration will be given to projects and strategies involving the
operation and management of the multimodal transportation system. Where
the request involves projects in a metropolitan planning area(s), the
affected MPO(s) must concur in the request. If the delay was due to the
development and approval of a metropolitan TIP(s), the affected MPO(s)
must provide supporting information, in writing, for the request.
(d) Where necessary in order to maintain or establish transit
operations, the FHWA and/or the FTA may approve operating assistance
for specific projects or programs funded under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5311,
5316, and 5317, even though the projects or programs may not be
included in an approved STIP.
Sec. 450.220 Project selection from the STIP.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 450.216(g) and Sec. 450.218(d),
only projects in a FHWA/FTA approved STIP shall be eligible for funds
administered by the FHWA or the FTA.
(b) In metropolitan planning areas, transportation projects
proposed for 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 subpart C of
this part.
(c) In non-metropolitan areas, transportation projects undertaken
on the National Highway System, under the Bridge and Interstate
Maintenance programs in title 23, U.S.C., and under sections 5310,
5311, 5316, and 5317 of title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53 shall be selected
from the approved STIP by the State in consultation with the affected
non-metropolitan local officials with responsibility for
transportation.
(d) Federal Lands Highway program projects shall be selected from
the approved STIP in accordance with the procedures developed pursuant
to 23 U.S.C. 204.
(e) 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) through (d)
of this section is required for the implementing agency to proceed with
these projects. If Federal funds available are significantly less than
the authorized amounts, or where there are significant shifting of
projects between years, Sec. 450.330(a) provides for a revised list of
``agreed to'' projects to be developed upon the request of the State,
MPO, or public transportation operator(s). If an implementing agency
wishes to proceed with a project in the second, third, or fourth year
of the STIP, the procedures in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section or expedited procedures that provide for the advancement of
projects from the second, third, or fourth years of the STIP may be
used, if agreed to by all parties involved in the selection process.
Sec. 450.222 Applicability of NEPA to statewide transportation plans
and programs.
Any decision by the FHWA and the FTA concerning a long-range
statewide transportation plan or STIP developed through the processes
provided for in 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5304 shall not be
considered to be a Federal action subject to review under NEPA.
Sec. 450.224 Phase-in of new requirements.
(a) Prior to July 1, 2007, long-range statewide transportation
plans and STIPs under development since August 10, 2005, may be
completed under
[[Page 33541]]
TEA-21 requirements. Long-range statewide transportation plans and
STIPs may also reflect the provisions of this part prior to July 1,
2007, but cannot take advantage of the extended update cycles (e.g.,
four years for STIPs) until all provisions and requirements of this
part are reflected in the long-range statewide transportation plan and
STIP.
(b) For STIPs that are developed under TEA-21 requirements prior to
July 1, 2007, the FHWA/FTA action (i.e., conformity determinations and
STIP approvals) must be completed no later than June 30, 2007. For
long-range statewide transportation plans that are completed under TEA-
21 requirements prior to July 1, 2007, the State adoption action must
be completed no later than June 30, 2007. If these actions are
completed on or after July 1, 2007, the provisions and requirements of
this part shall take effect, regardless of when the long-range
statewide transportation plan or the STIP were developed.
(c) In addition, the applicable action (see paragraph (b) of this
section) on any amendments or updates to STIPs or long-range statewide
transportation plans on or after July 1, 2007, shall be based on the
provisions and requirements of this part.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
Sec. 450.300 Purpose.
The purposes of this subpart are to implement the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303, as amended, which: (1) Sets forth the
national policy that the MPO designated for each urbanized area is to
carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive multimodal
transportation planning process, including the development of a
metropolitan transportation plan and a transportation improvement
program (TIP), that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient
development, management, and operation of surface transportation
systems to serve the mobility needs of people and freight (including
accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities)
and foster economic growth and development, while minimizing
transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution; and (2)
encourages continued development and improvement of metropolitan
transportation planning processes guided by the planning factors set
forth in 23 U.S.C. 134(h) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h).
Sec. 450.302 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to organizations and
entities responsible for the transportation planning and programming
processes in metropolitan planning areas.
Sec. 450.304 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 subpart
as so defined.
Sec. 450.306 Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning
process.
(a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall be
continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive, and provide for
consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services
that will address the following factors:
(1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area,
especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and
efficiency;
(2) Increase the safety of the transportation system for all
motorized and non-motorized users;
(3) Increase the ability of the transportation system to support
homeland security and to safeguard the personal security of all
motorized and non-motorized users;
(4) Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight;
(5) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy
conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency
between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth
and economic development patterns;
(6) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation
system, across and between modes, for people and freight;
(7) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
(8) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation
system.
(b) Consideration of the planning factors in paragraph (a) of this
section should be reflected, as appropriate, in all aspects of the
metropolitan transportation planning process, including activities such
as the formulation of goals, objectives, performance measures, and
evaluation criteria for use in developing the metropolitan
transportation plan; identification of prioritization criteria for
projects and strategies reflected in the TIP; and development of short-
range planning studies, strategic planning and/or policy studies, or
transportation needs studies.
(c) The failure to consider any factor specified in paragraph (a)
of this section shall not be reviewable by any court in any matter
affecting a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, a project or
strategy, or the certification of a metropolitan transportation
planning process.
(d) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall be
carried out in coordination with the statewide transportation planning
process required by 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5304.
(e) In carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning
process, MPOs, States, and public transportation operators are
encouraged to apply asset management principles and techniques in
establishing planning goals, defining TIP priorities, and assessing
transportation investment decisions, including transportation system
safety, operations, preservation, and maintenance, as well as
strategies and policies to support homeland security and to safeguard
the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users.
(f) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall be
consistent with the development of applicable regional intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) architectures, as defined in 23 CFR part
940.
(g) The metropolitan transportation planning process should be
consistent with the development of Coordinated Public Transit-Human
Services Transportation Plans, as required by 49 U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and
5317.
(h) The metropolitan transportation planning process should be
consistent with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, as specified in 23
U.S.C. 148, and the Regional Transit Security Strategy, as required by
the Department of Homeland Security.
(i) The FHWA and the FTA shall designate as a transportation
management area (TMA) each urbanized area with a population of over
200,000 individuals, as defined by the Bureau of the Census. The FHWA
and the FTA shall also designate any additional urbanized area as a TMA
on the request of the Governor and the MPO designated for that area.
(j) In an urbanized area not designated as a TMA that is an air
quality attainment area, the MPO(s) may propose and submit to the FHWA
and the FTA for approval a procedure for developing an abbreviated
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP. In developing proposed
simplified planning procedures, consideration shall be given to whether
the abbreviated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP will achieve
the purposes of 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and these regulations,
taking into account
[[Page 33542]]
the complexity of the transportation problems in the area. The
simplified procedures shall be developed by the MPO in cooperation with
the State(s) and public transportation operator(s).
Sec. 450.308 Funding for transportation planning and unified planning
work programs.
(a) Funds provided under 23 U.S.C. 104(f), 49 U.S.C. 5305(d), 49
U.S.C. 5307, and 49 U.S.C. 5339 are available to MPOs to accomplish
activities in this subpart. At the State's option, funds provided under
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) and (b)(3) and 23 U.S.C. 105 may also be provided
to MPOs for metropolitan transportation planning. In addition, an MPO
serving an urbanized area with a population over 200,000, as designated
by the Bureau of the Census, may at its discretion use funds sub-
allocated under 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(E) for metropolitan transportation
planning activities.
(b) Metropolitan transportation planning activities performed with
funds provided under title 23, U.S.C. and title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53
shall be documented in a unified planning work program (UPWP) or
simplified statement of work in accordance with the provisions of this
section and 23 CFR part 420.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each MPO,
in cooperation with the State(s) and public transportation operator(s),
shall develop a UPWP that includes a discussion of the planning
priorities facing the MPA. The UPWP shall identify work proposed for
the next one or two-year period by major activity and task (including
activities that address the planning factors in Sec. 450.306(a)), in
sufficient detail to indicate who (e.g., MPO, State, public
transportation operator, local government, or consultant) will perform
the work, the schedule for completing the work, the resulting products,
the proposed funding by activity/task, and a summary of the total
amounts and sources of Federal and matching funds.
(d) With the prior approval of the State and the FHWA and the FTA,
an MPO in an area not designated as a TMA may prepare a simplified
statement of work, in cooperation with the State(s) and the public
transportation operator(s), in lieu of a UPWP. A simplified statement
of work would include a description of the major activities to be
performed during the next one- or two-year period, who (e.g., State,
MPO, public transportation operator, local government, or consultant)
will perform the work, the resulting products, and a summary of the
total amounts and sources of Federal and matching funds. If a
simplified statement of work is used, it may be submitted as part of
the State's planning work program, in accordance with 23 CFR part 420.
(e) Arrangements may be made with the FHWA and the FTA to combine
the UPWP or simplified statement of work with the work program(s) for
other Federal planning funds.
(f) Administrative requirements for UPWPs and simplified statements
of work are contained in 23 CFR part 420 and FTA Circular C8100.1B
(Program Guidance and Application Instructions for Metropolitan
Planning Grants).
Sec. 450.310 Metropolitan planning organization designation and
redesignation.
(a) To carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process
under this subpart, a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) shall be
designated for each urbanized area with a population of more than
50,000 individuals (as determined by the Bureau of the Census).
(b) MPO designation shall be made by agreement between the Governor
and units of general purpose local government that together represent
at least 75 percent of the affected population (including the largest
incorporated city, based on population, as named by the Bureau of the
Census) or in accordance with procedures established by applicable
State or local law.
(c) An MPO should be designated, to the extent possible, under
specific State legislation, State enabling legislation, or by
interstate compact, and shall have authority to carry out
transportation planning for the entire area that it serves.
(d) When an MPO that serves a TMA is designated or redesignated,
the MPO shall include local elected officials, officials of agencies
that administer or operate major modes of transportation, and
appropriate State transportation officials.
(e) To the extent possible, only one MPO should be designated for
each urbanized area or group of contiguous urbanized areas. More than
one MPO may be designated to serve an urbanized area only if the
Governor(s) and the existing MPO, if applicable, determine that the
size and complexity of the urbanized area make designation of more than
one MPO appropriate. In those cases where two or more MPOs serve the
same urbanized area, the MPOs shall establish official, written
agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination and the division
of transportation planning responsibilities among the MPOs.
(f) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to interfere with
the authority, under any State law in effect on December 18, 1991, of a
public agency with multimodal transportation responsibilities to
develop the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for adoption by
the MPO, or to develop long-range capital plans, coordinate transit
services, and projects and carry out other activities pursuant to State
law.
(g) 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 metropolitan transportation planning process.
(h) An MPO designation shall remain in effect until an official
redesignation has been made in accordance with this section.
(i) An existing MPO may be redesignated only by agreement between
the Governor and units of general purpose local government that
together represent at least 75 percent of the existing metropolitan
planning area population (including the largest incorporated city,
based on population, as named by the Bureau of the Census).
(j) Redesignation of an MPO serving a multi-State metropolitan
planning area requires agreement between the Governors of each State
served by the existing MPO and units of general purpose local
government that together represent at least 75 percent of the existing
metropolitan planning area population (including the largest
incorporated city, based on population, as named by the Bureau of the
Census).
(k) For the purposes of redesignation, units of general purpose
local government may be defined as either:
(1) The local elected officials currently serving on the MPO; or
(2) The elected officials from each unit of general purpose local
government located within the metropolitan planning area served by the
existing MPO.
(l) Redesignation of an MPO is required whenever the existing MPO
determines that:
(1) There is a substantial change in the proportion of voting
members on the existing MPO representing the largest incorporated city,
other units of general purpose local government served by the MPO, and
the State(s); or
(2) There is a substantial change in the decisionmaking authority
or responsibility of the MPO, or in decisionmaking procedures
established under MPO by-laws.
(m) The following changes to an MPO do not require a redesignation:
[[Page 33543]]
(1) The identification of a new urbanized area (as determined by
the Bureau of the Census) within an existing metropolitan planning
area;
(2) Adding members to the MPO that represent new units of general
purpose local government resulting from expansion of the metropolitan
planning area;
(3) Adding members to satisfy the specific membership requirements
for an MPO that serves a TMA; or
(4) Periodic rotation of members representing units of general-
purpose local government, as established under MPO by-laws.
Sec. 450.312 Metropolitan planning area boundaries.
(a) The boundaries of a metropolitan planning area (MPA) shall be
determined by agreement between the MPO and the Governor. At a minimum,
the MPA boundaries shall encompass the entire existing urbanized area
(as defined by the Bureau of the Census) plus the contiguous area
expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the
metropolitan transportation plan. The MPA boundaries may be further
expanded to encompass the entire metropolitan statistical area or
combined statistical area, as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget.
(b) If any of the urbanized area(s) served by the MPO lie within a
nonattainment or maintenance area for ozone, carbon monoxide, or
particulate matter as designated under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.) as of August 10, 2005, the MPA boundaries in existence at
that time shall be retained. However, the MPA boundaries may be
adjusted by agreement of the Governor and affected MPOs to encompass
the entire nonattainment or maintenance area by agreement of the
Governor.
(c) An MPA boundary may encompass more than one urbanized area.
(d) The MPA boundaries may be established to coincide with the
geography of regional economic development and growth forecasting
areas.
(e) Identification of new urbanized areas within an existing
metropolitan planning area by the Bureau of the Census shall not
require redesignation of the existing MPO.
(f) Where the boundaries of the urbanized area or MPA extend across
two or more States, the Governors with responsibility for a portion of
the multistate area, MPO(s), and the public transportation operator(s)
are strongly encouraged to coordinate transportation planning for the
entire multistate area.
(g) The MPA boundaries shall not overlap with each other.
(h) Where part of an urbanized area served by one MPO extends into
an adjacent MPA, the MPOs shall, at a minimum, establish written
agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination and the division
of transportation planning responsibilities among and between the MPOs.
Alternatively, the MPOs may adjust their existing boundaries so that
the entire urbanized area lies within only one MPA. Boundary
adjustments that significantly change the composition of the MPO may
require redesignation of one or more such MPOs.
(i) The MPA boundaries shall be reviewed after each Census by the
MPO (in cooperation with the State and public transportation
operator(s)) to determine if existing MPA boundaries meet the minimum
statutory requirements for new and updated urbanized area(s), and shall
be adjusted as necessary. As appropriate, additional adjustments should
be made to reflect the most comprehensive boundary to foster an
effective planning process that ensures connectivity between modes,
reduces access disadvantages experienced by modal systems, and promotes
efficient overall transportation investment strategies.
(j) Following MPA boundary approval by the MPO and the Governor,
the MPA boundary descriptions shall be provided for informational
purposes to the FHWA and the FTA. The MPA boundary descriptions shall
be submitted either as a geo-spatial database or described in
sufficient detail to enable the boundaries to be accurately delineated
on a map.
Sec. 450.314 Metropolitan planning agreements.
(a) The MPO, the State(s), and the public transportation
operator(s) shall cooperatively determine their mutual responsibilities
in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process. These
responsibilities shall be clearly identified in a written agreement
among the MPO, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s)
serving the MPA.
(1) The written agreement shall include specific provisions for
cooperatively developing and sharing information related to the
development of financial plans that support the metropolitan
transportation plan (see Sec. 450.322) and the metropolitan TIP (see
Sec. 450.324) and development of the annual listing of obligated
projects (see Sec. 450.332).
(2) The written agreement should include provisions for consulting
with officials responsible for other types of planning affected by
transportation, including State and local planned growth, economic
development, environmental protection, airport operations, freight
movements, safety/security operations, and providers of non-emergency
transportation services receiving financial assistance from a source
other than title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53 that may include (as
appropriate) transportation planning products or milestones
representing consultation opportunities and/or periodic review of the
various consultation mechanisms.
(b) If the MPA does not include the entire nonattainment or
maintenance area, there shall be a written 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 MPA within the nonattainment
or maintenance area. The agreement must also indicate how the total
transportation-related emissions for the nonattainment or maintenance
area, including areas outside the MPA, will be treated for the purposes
of determining conformity in accordance with the EPA's transportation
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93). The agreement shall address policy
mechanisms for resolving conflicts concerning transportation-related
emissions that may arise between the MPA and the portion of the
nonattainment or maintenance area outside the MPA.
(c) In nonattainment or maintenance areas, if the MPO is not the
designated agency for air quality planning under section 174 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), there shall be a written agreement
between the MPO and the designated air quality planning agency
describing their respective roles and responsibilities for air quality
related transportation planning.
(d) If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an urbanized
area, there shall be a written agreement between the MPOs, the
State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) describing how the
metropolitan transportation planning processes will be coordinated to
assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans
and TIPs across the MPA boundaries, particularly in cases in which a
proposed transportation investment extends across the boundaries of
more than one MPA. If any part of the urbanized area is a nonattainment
or maintenance area, the agreement also shall include State and local
air quality agencies. The
[[Page 33544]]
metropolitan transportation planning processes for affected MPOs
should, to the maximum extent possible, reflect coordinated data
collection, analysis, and planning assumptions across the MPAs.
Alternatively, a single metropolitan transportation plan and/or TIP for
the entire urbanized area may be developed jointly by the MPOs in
cooperation with their respective planning partners. Coordination
efforts and outcomes shall be documented in subsequent transmittals of
the UPWP and other planning products, including the metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP, to the State(s), the FHWA, and the FTA.
(e) Where the boundaries of the urbanized area or MPA extend across
two or more States, the Governors with responsibility for a portion of
the multistate area, the appropriate MPO(s), and the public
transportation operator(s) shall coordinate transportation planning for
the entire multistate area. States involved in such multistate
transportation planning may:
(1) Enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law
of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in
support of activities authorized under this section as the activities
pertain to interstate areas and localities within the States; and
(2) Establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as the States may
determine desirable for making the agreements and compacts effective.
(f) If part of an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA
overlaps into an adjacent MPA that does not primarily serve a TMA, the
entire adjacent urbanized area is not necessarily considered a TMA.
However, at a minimum, there shall be a written agreement between the
State(s), the MPOs, and the public transportation operator(s)
describing how specific TMA requirements (e.g., congestion management
process, Surface Transportation Program funds suballocated to the
urbanized area over 200,000 population, and project selection) will be
met for the overlapping part of the urbanized area contained in the
TMA.
Sec. 450.316 Interested parties, participation, and consultation.
(a) The MPO shall develop and use a documented participation plan
that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public
agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight
shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private
providers of transportation, representatives of users of public
transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and
bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled,
agencies or entities responsible for safety/security operations,
providers of non-emergency transportation services receiving financial
assistance from a source other than title 49, U.S.C, Chapter 53, and
other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved
in the metropolitan transportation planning process.
(1) The participation plan shall be developed by the MPO in
consultation with all interested parties and shall, at a minimum,
describe explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for:
(i) Providing adequate public notice of public participation
activities and time for public review and comment at key decision
points, including but not limited to a reasonable opportunity to
comment on the proposed metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP;
(ii) Providing timely notice and reasonable access to information
about transportation issues and processes;
(iii) Employing visualization techniques to describe metropolitan
transportation plans and TIPs;
(iv) Making public information (technical information and meeting
notices) available in electronically accessible formats and means, such
as the World Wide Web;
(v) Holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible
locations and times;
(vi) Demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public
input received during the development of the metropolitan
transportation plan and the TIP;
(vii) Seeking out and considering the needs of those traditionally
underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low-income and
minority households, who may face challenges accessing employment and
other services;
(viii) Providing an additional opportunity for public comment, if
the final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP differs significantly
from the version that was initially made available for public comment;
(ix) Coordinating with the statewide transportation planning public
involvement and consultation processes under subpart B of this part;
and
(x) Periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the procedures and
strategies contained in the participation plan to ensure a full and
open participation process.
(2) When significant written and oral comments are received on the
draft metropolitan transportation plan and TIP (including the financial
plans) as a result of the participation process in this section or the
interagency consultation process required under the EPA transportation
conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93), a summary, analysis, and
report on the disposition of comments shall be made as part of the
final metropolitan transportation plan and TIP.
(3) A minimum public comment period of 45 calendar days shall be
provided before the initial or revised participation plan is adopted by
the MPO. Copies of the approved participation plan shall be provided to
the FHWA and the FTA for informational purposes and shall be posted on
the World Wide Web, to the maximum extent practicable.
(b) In developing metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, the
MPO shall consult, as appropriate, with agencies and officials
responsible for other planning activities within the MPA that are
affected by transportation. To coordinate the planning functions to the
maximum extent practicable, such consultation shall compare
metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, as they are developed, with
the plans, maps, inventories, and planning documents developed by other
agencies. This consultation shall include, as appropriate, contacts
with State, local, Indian Tribal, and private agencies responsible for
planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, airport
operations, freight movements, land use management, natural resources,
conservation, and historic preservation. In addition, transportation
plans and TIPs shall be developed with due consideration of other
related planning activities within the metropolitan area, and the
process shall provide for the design and delivery of transportation
services within the area that are provided by:
(1) Recipients of assistance under title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53;
(2) Governmental agencies and non-profit organizations (including
representatives of the agencies and organizations) that receive Federal
assistance from a source other than the U.S. Department of
Transportation to provide non-emergency transportation services; and
(3) Recipients of assistance under 23 U.S.C. 204.
(c) When the MPA includes Indian Tribal lands, the MPO shall
appropriately involve the Indian Tribal government(s) in the
development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP.
[[Page 33545]]
(d) When the MPA includes Federal public lands, the MPO shall
appropriately involve the Federal land management agencies in the
development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP.
(e) The MPOs are encouraged to develop a documented process(es)
that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key decision points for
consulting with other governments and agencies, as defined in
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, which may be included in
the agreement(s) developed under Sec. 450.314.
Sec. 450.318 Transportation planning studies and project development.
(a) The MPO, State, and/or public transportation operator may
undertake a corridor or subarea planning study as part of the
metropolitan transportation planning process. The results of these
transportation planning studies may be incorporated into the overall
project development process to the extent that they meet the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and associated implementing regulations (23
CFR part 771 and 40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Specifically, these corridor
or subarea studies may be used to produce any of the following for a
proposed transportation project:
(1) Purpose and need or goals and objective statement(s);
(2) General travel corridor and/or general mode(s) definition
(i.e., highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination);
(3) Preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of
unreasonable alternatives;
(4) Description of the affected environment; and/or
(5) Preliminary identification of environmental impacts and
environmental mitigation.
(b) Publicly available documents produced by, or in support of, the
transportation planning process described in this subpart may be
incorporated by reference into subsequent NEPA documents, in accordance
with 40 CFR 1502.21, to the extent that:
(1) The NEPA lead agencies agree that such incorporation will aid
in establishing or evaluating the purpose and need for the Federal
action, reasonable alternatives, cumulative or other impacts on the
human and natural environment, or mitigation of these impacts; and
(2) The corridor or subarea planning study is conducted with:
(i) Involvement of interested State, local, Tribal, and Federal
agencies;
(ii) Public review;
(iii) Continual opportunity to comment during the metropolitan
transportation planning process and development of the corridor or
subarea planning study;
(iv) Documentation of relevant decisions in a form that is
identifiable and available for review during the NEPA scoping process
and can be appended to or referenced in the NEPA document; and
(v) The review of the FHWA and the FTA, as appropriate.
(c) By agreement of the NEPA lead agencies, the above integration
may be accomplished through incorporating the subarea or corridor
planning study into the draft Environmental Impact Statement or
Environmental Assessment and other means of incorporation by reference
that the NEPA lead agencies deem appropriate. Additional details on
linkages between the transportation planning and project development/
NEPA processes is contained in Appendix A to this part.
Sec. 450.320 Congestion management process in transportation
management areas.
(a) The transportation planning process in a TMA shall address
congestion management through a process that provides for safe and
effective integrated management and operation of the multimodal
transportation system, based on a cooperatively developed and
implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing
transportation facilities eligible for funding under title 23, U.S.C.,
and title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53 through the use of travel demand
reduction and operational management strategies.
(b) The development of a congestion management process should
result in multimodal system performance measures and strategies that
can be reflected in the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP.
The level of system performance deemed acceptable by State and local
transportation officials may vary by type of transportation facility,
geographic location (metropolitan area or subarea), and/or time of day.
In addition, consideration should be given to strategies that manage
demand, reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel, and improve
transportation system management and operations. Where the addition of
general purpose lanes is determined to be an appropriate congestion
management strategy, explicit consideration is to be given to the
incorporation of appropriate features into the SOV project to
facilitate future demand management strategies and operational
improvements that will maintain the functional integrity and safety of
those lanes.
(c) The congestion management process shall be developed,
established, and implemented as part of the metropolitan transportation
planning process that includes coordination with transportation system
management and operations activities. The congestion management process
shall include:
(1) Methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of the
multimodal transportation system, identify the causes of recurring and
non-recurring congestion, identify and evaluate alternative strategies,
provide information supporting the implementation of actions, and
evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions;
(2) Definition of congestion management objectives and appropriate
performance measures to assess the extent of congestion and support the
evaluation of the effectiveness of congestion reduction and mobility
enhancement strategies for the movement of people and goods. Since
levels of acceptable system performance may vary among local
communities, performance measures should be tailored to the specific
needs of the area and established cooperatively by the State(s),
affected MPO(s), and local officials in consultation with the operators
of major modes of transportation in the coverage area;
(3) Establishment of a coordinated program for data collection and
system performance monitoring to define the extent and duration of
congestion, to contribute in determining the causes of congestion, and
evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions. To
the extent possible, this data collection program should be coordinated
with existing data sources (including archived operational/ITS data)
and coordinated with operations managers in the metropolitan area;
(4) Identification and evaluation of the anticipated performance
and expected benefits of appropriate congestion management strategies
that will contribute to the more effective use and improved safety of
existing and future transportation systems based on the established
performance measures. The following categories of strategies, or
combinations of strategies, are some examples of what should be
appropriately considered for each area:
(i) Demand management measures, including growth management and
congestion pricing;
(ii) Traffic operational improvements;
[[Page 33546]]
(iii) Public transportation improvements;
(iv) ITS technologies as related to the regional ITS architecture;
and
(v) Where necessary, additional system capacity;
(5) Identification of an implementation schedule, implementation
responsibilities, and possible funding sources for each strategy (or
combination of strategies) proposed for implementation; and
(6) Implementation of a process for periodic assessment of the
effectiveness of implemented strategies, in terms of the area's
established performance measures. The results of this evaluation shall
be provided to decisionmakers and the public to provide guidance on
selection of effective strategies for future implementation.
(d) In a TMA designated as nonattainment area for ozone or carbon
monoxide pursuant to the Clean Air Act, Federal funds may not be
programmed for any project that will result in a significant increase
in the carrying capacity for SOVs (i.e., 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 is addressed through a congestion management process meeting
the requirements of this section.
(e) In nonattainment and maintenance area TMAs, the congestion
management process shall provide an appropriate analysis of all
reasonable (including multimodal) travel demand reduction and
operational management strategies for the corridor in which a project
that will result in a significant increase in capacity for SOVs (as
described in paragraph (d) of this section) is proposed. If the
analysis demonstrates that travel demand reduction and operational
management strategies cannot fully satisfy the need for additional
capacity in the corridor and additional SOV capacity is warranted, then
the congestion management process shall identify all reasonable
strategies to manage the SOV facility safely and effectively (or to
facilitate its management in the future). Other travel demand reduction
and operational management strategies appropriate for the corridor, but
not appropriate for incorporation into the SOV facility itself, shall
also be identified through the congestion management process. All
identified reasonable travel demand reduction and operational
management strategies shall be incorporated into the SOV project or
committed to by the State and MPO for implementation.
(f) State laws, rules, or regulations pertaining to congestion
management systems or programs may constitute the congestion management
process, if the FHWA and the FTA find that the State laws, rules, or
regulations are consistent with, and fulfill the intent of, the
purposes of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
Sec. 450.322 Development and content of the metropolitan
transportation plan.
(a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include
the development of a transportation plan addressing at least a 20-year
planning horizon as of the effective date. In nonattainment and
maintenance areas, the effective date of the transportation plan shall
be the date of a conformity determination issued by the FHWA and the
FTA. In attainment areas, the effective date of the transportation plan
shall be its date of adoption by the MPO.
(b) The transportation plan shall include both long-range and
short-range strategies/actions that lead to the development of an
integrated multimodal transportation system to facilitate the safe and
efficient movement of people and goods in addressing current and future
transportation demand.
(c) The MPO shall review and update the transportation plan at
least every four years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance
areas and at least every five years in attainment areas to confirm the
transportation plan's validity and consistency with current and
forecasted transportation and land use conditions and trends and to
extend the forecast period to at least a 20-year planning horizon. In
addition, the MPO may revise the transportation plan at any time using
the procedures in this section without a requirement to extend the
horizon year. The transportation plan (and any revisions) shall be
approved by the MPO and submitted for information purposes to the
Governor. Copies of any updated or revised transportation plans must be
provided to the FHWA and the FTA.
(d) In metropolitan areas that are in nonattainment for ozone or
carbon monoxide, the State air quality agency shall coordinate the
development of the transportation control measures (TCMs) in a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) with the MPO. For TCM substitutions or
additions made under section 176(c)(8) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7506(c)(8)), the MPO, State air quality agency, and the EPA must concur
on the equivalency of any substitute TCMs and the addition of new TCMs
to the SIP.
(e) The transportation plan update process shall include a
mechanism for ensuring that the MPO, the State(s), and the public
transportation operator(s) agree that the data utilized in preparing
other existing modal plans providing input to the transportation plan
are valid. In updating the transportation plan, the MPO shall base the
update on the latest available estimates and assumptions for
population, land use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic
activity. The MPO shall approve transportation plan contents and
supporting analyses produced by a transportation plan update.
(f) The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at a minimum,
include:
(1) The projected transportation demand of persons and goods in the
metropolitan planning area over the period of the transportation plan;
(2) Existing and proposed transportation facilities (including
major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities,
pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors)
that should function as an integrated metropolitan transportation
system, giving emphasis to those facilities that serve important
national and regional transportation functions over the period of the
transportation plan. In addition, the locally preferred alternative
selected from an Alternatives Analysis under the FTA's Capital
Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR part 611) needs to
be adopted as part of the metropolitan transportation plan as a
condition for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309;
(3) Operational and management strategies to improve the
performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular
congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods;
(4) Consideration of the results of the congestion management
process in TMAs that meet the requirements of this subpart, including
the identification of SOV projects that result from a congestion
management process in TMAs that are nonattainment for carbon monoxide
or ozone;
(5) Assessment of capital investment and other strategies to
preserve the existing and projected future metropolitan transportation
infrastructure and provide for multimodal capacity increases based on
regional priorities and needs;
(6) Design concept and design scope descriptions of all existing
and proposed transportation facilities in sufficient detail, regardless
of funding source, in nonattainment and maintenance areas for
conformity
[[Page 33547]]
determinations under the EPA's transportation conformity rule (40 CFR
part 93). In all areas (regardless of air quality designation), all
proposed improvements shall be described in sufficient detail to
develop cost estimates;
(7) A discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities
and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities
that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the
environmental functions affected by the metropolitan transportation
plan. The discussion shall be developed in consultation with Federal,
State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies.
The MPO may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this
consultation;
(8) Pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation facilities in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g);
(9) Transportation and transit enhancement activities, as
appropriate; and
(10) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted
transportation plan can be implemented, while operating and maintaining
existing facilities and services. For the purpose of developing the
transportation plan, the MPO, public transportation operator(s), and
State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be
available to support metropolitan transportation plan implementation,
as required under Sec. 450.314(a)(1). All necessary financial
resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected
to be made available to carry out the transportation plan shall be
identified. The financial plan shall include recommendations on any
additional financing strategies to fund projects and programs included
in the metropolitan transportation plan. In the case of new funding
sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be
identified. In developing the financial plan, the MPO shall take into
account all projects and strategies proposed for funding under title
23, U.S.C., title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53, or with other Federal funds;
State assistance; local sources; and private participation. For
nonattainment and maintenance areas, the financial plan shall address
the specific financial strategies required to ensure the implementation
of TCMs in the applicable SIP. In addition, the financial plan may
include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be
included in the adopted transportation plan if additional resources
beyond those identified in the financial plan were available.
Additional criteria and information on financial plans that support
metropolitan transportation plans are contained in Appendix B to this
part.
(g) The MPO shall consult, as appropriate, with State and local
agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources,
environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation
concerning the development of the transportation plan. The consultation
shall involve, as appropriate:
(1) Comparison of transportation plans with State conservation
plans or maps, if available; or
(2) Comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or
historic resources, if available.
(h) The metropolitan transportation plan should include a safety
element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals,
countermeasures, or projects for the MPA contained in the Strategic
Highway Safety Plan required under 23 U.S.C. 148, as well as (as
appropriate) emergency relief and disaster preparedness plans and
strategies and policies that support homeland security and safeguard
the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users.
(i) The MPO shall provide citizens, affected public agencies,
representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers,
providers of freight transportation services, private providers of
transportation, representatives of users of public transportation,
representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle
transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other
interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
transportation plan using the participation plan developed under Sec.
450.316(a).
(j) The metropolitan transportation plan shall be published or
otherwise made readily available by the MPO for public review,
including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically
accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web.
(k) A State or MPO shall not be required to select any project from
the illustrative list of additional projects included in the financial
plan under paragraph (f)(9) of this section.
(l) In nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-
related pollutants, the MPO, as well as the FHWA and the FTA, must make
a conformity determination on any updated or amended transportation
plan in accordance with the Clean Air Act and the EPA transportation
conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93). During a conformity lapse,
MPOs can prepare an interim metropolitan transportation plan as a basis
for advancing projects that are eligible to proceed under a conformity
lapse. An interim metropolitan transportation plan consisting of
eligible projects from the most recent conforming transportation plan
and TIP may proceed immediately without revisiting the requirements of
this section, subject to interagency consultation. An interim
metropolitan transportation plan containing eligible projects that are
not from the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP must
meet all the requirements of this section.
Sec. 450.324 Development and content of the transportation
improvement program (TIP).
(a) The MPO, in cooperation with the State(s) and any affected
public transportation operator(s), shall develop a TIP for the
metropolitan planning area. The TIP shall cover a period of not less
than four years, be updated at least every four years, and be approved
by the MPO and the Governor. If the TIP covers more than four years,
the FHWA and the FTA will consider the projects in the additional years
as informational. The TIP may be updated more frequently, but the cycle
for updating the TIP must be compatible with the STIP development and
approval process. The TIP expires when the FHWA/FTA approval of the
STIP expires. Copies of any updated or revised TIPs must be provided to
the FHWA and the FTA. In nonattainment and maintenance areas subject to
transportation conformity requirements, the FHWA and the FTA, as well
as the MPO, must make a conformity determination on any updated or
revised TIP, in accordance with the Clean Air Act requirements and the
EPA's transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93).
(b) The MPO shall provide all interested parties with a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the proposed TIP as required by Sec.
450.316(a). In addition, in nonattainment area TMAs, the MPO shall
provide at least one formal public meeting during the TIP development
process, which should be addressed through the participation plan
described in Sec. 450.316(a). In addition, the TIP shall be published
or otherwise made readily available by the MPO for public review,
including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically
accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web, as described
in Sec. 450.316(a).
(c) The TIP shall include federally supported capital and non-
capital surface transportation projects (or phases of projects) within
the
[[Page 33548]]
boundaries of the metropolitan planning area proposed for funding under
23 U.S.C. and 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53 (including transportation
enhancements; Federal Lands Highway program projects; safety projects
included in the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan; trails projects;
pedestrian walkways; and bicycle facilities), but excluding:
(1) Safety projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 31102;
(2) Metropolitan planning projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(f),
49 U.S.C. 5305(d), and 49 U.S.C. 5339;
(3) State planning and research projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 505
and 49 U.S.C. 5305(e);
(4) At the discretion of the State and MPO, State planning and
research projects funded with National Highway System, Surface
Transportation Program, and/or Equity Bonus funds;
(5) Emergency relief projects (except those involving substantial
functional, locational, or capacity changes);
(6) National planning and research projects funded under 49 U.S.C.
5314; and
(7) Project management oversight projects funded under 49 U.S.C.
5327.
(d) The TIP shall contain all regionally significant projects
requiring an action by the FHWA or the FTA whether or not the projects
are to be funded under title 23, U.S.C., Chapters 1 and 2 or title 49,
U.S.C., Chapter 53 (e.g., addition of an interchange to the Interstate
System with State, local, and/or private funds and congressionally
designated projects not funded under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C., Chapter
53). For public information and conformity purposes, the TIP should
include all regionally significant projects proposed to be funded with
Federal funds other than those administered by the FHWA or the FTA, as
well as all regionally significant projects to be funded with non-
Federal funds.
(e) The TIP shall include, for each project or phase (e.g.,
preliminary engineering, environment/NEPA, right-of-way, design, or
construction), the following:
(1) Sufficient descriptive material (i.e., type of work, termini,
and length) to identify the project or phase;
(2) Estimated total project cost, which may extend beyond the four
years of the TIP;
(3) The amount of funds proposed to be obligated during each
program year for the project or phase (by category and source);
(4) Identification of the agencies responsible for carrying out the
project or phase;
(5) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, identification of those
projects which are identified as TCMs in the applicable SIP;
(6) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, included projects shall
be specified in sufficient detail (design concept and scope) for air
quality analysis in accordance with the EPA transportation conformity
regulation (40 CFR part 93); and
(7) In areas with Americans with Disabilities Act required
paratransit and key station plans, identification of those projects
that will implement these plans.
(f) 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 771.117(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part 93.
In nonattainment and maintenance areas, classifications must be
consistent with the ``exempt project'' classifications contained in the
EPA transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93). In addition,
projects proposed for funding under title 23, U.S.C., Chapter 2 that
are not regionally significant may be grouped in one line item or
identified individually in the TIP.
(g) Each project or project phase included in the TIP shall be
consistent with the approved metropolitan transportation plan.
(h) The TIP shall include a financial plan that demonstrates how
the approved TIP can be implemented, indicates resources from public
and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available
to carry out the TIP, and recommends any additional financing
strategies for needed projects and programs. In developing the TIP, the
MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s) shall
cooperatively develop estimates of funds that are reasonably expected
to be available to support TIP implementation, in accordance with Sec.
450.314(a)(1). Only projects for which construction or operating funds
can reasonably be expected to be available may be included. In the case
of new funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability
shall be identified. In developing the financial plan, the MPO shall
take into account all projects and strategies funded under title 23,
U.S.C., title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53, and other Federal funds;
regionally significant projects that are not Federally funded; and
operation and maintenance of the existing system. The financial plan
may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would
be included in the adopted transportation plan and TIP if reasonable
additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were
available. Additional criteria and information on financial plans that
support the TIP are contained in Appendix B to this part.
(i) The TIP shall include a project, or a 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. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included in
the first two years of the TIP shall be limited to those for which
funds are available or committed. The TIP financial constraint shall be
demonstrated and maintained by year and shall include sufficient
financial information to demonstrate which projects are to be
implemented using current and/or reasonably available revenues, by
source, and which projects are to be implemented using proposed revenue
sources while the entire transportation system is being adequately
operated and maintained. In the case of proposed funding sources,
strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified in the
financial plan consistent with paragraph (h) of this section.
Additional information on TIP financial constraint and the financial
plan that supports the TIP are contained in appendix B of this part. In
nonattainment and maintenance areas, the TIP shall give priority to
eligible TCMs identified in the approved SIP in accordance with the EPA
transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93) and shall provide
for their timely implementation.
(j) As a management tool for monitoring progress in implementing
the transportation plan, the TIP should:
(1) Identify the criteria and process for prioritizing
implementation of transportation plan elements (including multimodal
trade-offs) for inclusion in 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; and
(3) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, describe the progress
in implementing any required TCMs, in accordance with 40 CFR part 93.
(k) During a conformity lapse, MPOs may prepare an interim TIP as a
basis for advancing projects that are eligible to proceed under a lapse
(as defined in 40 CFR part 93). An interim TIP consisting of eligible
projects from the most recent conforming metropolitan transportation
plan and TIP may
[[Page 33549]]
proceed immediately without revisiting the requirements of this
section, subject to interagency consultation defined in 40 CFR part 93.
An interim TIP containing eligible projects that are not from the most
recent conforming transportation plan and TIP must meet all the
requirements of this section.
(l) Projects in any of the first four years of the TIP may be
advanced in place of another project in the first four years of the
TIP, subject to the project selection requirements of Sec. 450.330. In
addition, the TIP may be revised at any time under procedures agreed to
by the State, MPO(s), and public transportation operator(s) consistent
with the TIP development procedures established in this section, as
well as the procedures for the MPO participation plan (see Sec.
450.316(a)) and FHWA/FTA actions on the TIP (see Sec. 450.328).
Sec. 450.326 TIP revisions and relationship to the STIP.
(a) An MPO may revise the TIP 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 amended by adding or deleting non-exempt
projects (per 40 CFR part 93), or is replaced with an updated TIP, the
MPO and the FHWA and the FTA must make a new conformity determination.
In all areas, changes that affect fiscal constraint must take place by
amendment of the TIP. Public participation procedures consistent with
Sec. 450.316(b) shall be utilized in revising the TIP, except that
these procedures are not required for administrative modifications that
only involve projects of the type covered in Sec. 450.324(f).
(b) After approval by the MPO and the Governor, the TIP shall be
included without change, directly or by reference, in the STIP required
under 23 U.S.C. 135. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, a
conformity finding on the TIP must be made by the FHWA and the FTA
before it is included in the STIP. A copy of the approved TIP shall be
provided to the FHWA and the FTA.
(c) The State shall notify the MPO and Federal land management
agencies when a TIP including projects under the jurisdiction of these
agencies has been included in the STIP.
Sec. 450.328 TIP action by the FHWA and the FTA.
(a) The FHWA and the FTA shall jointly find that each metropolitan
TIP, including amendments thereto, is consistent with the metropolitan
transportation plan produced by the continuing, comprehensive
transportation process carried on cooperatively by the MPO(s), the
State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) in accordance with
23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303. This finding shall be based on the
self-certification statement submitted by the State and MPO under Sec.
450.334, a review of the metropolitan transportation plan by the FHWA
and the FTA, and upon other reviews as deemed necessary by the FHWA and
the FTA.
(b) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the MPO, as well as the
FHWA and the FTA, shall determine conformity of any updated or amended
TIP , in accordance with 40 CFR part 93. After the FHWA and the FTA
issue a conformity determination on the TIP, the TIP shall be
incorporated, without change, into the STIP, directly or by reference.
(c) If the metropolitan transportation plan has not been updated in
accordance with the cycles defined in Sec. 450.322(c), projects may
only be advanced from a previously approved TIP in attainment areas or
a previously conforming TIP in nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Until the MPO approves (in attainment areas) or the FHWA/FTA issues a
conformity determination on (in nonattainment and maintenance areas)
the updated metropolitan transportation plan, the TIP may not be
amended.
(d) 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 TIP in accordance with
Sec. 450.216(e).
(e) 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 financially constrained and conforming
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP.
(f) Where necessary in order to maintain or establish operations,
the FHWA and/or the FTA may approve transit operating assistance for
specific projects or programs funded under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5311, 5316,
and 5317, even though the projects or programs may not be included in
an approved TIP/STIP.
Sec. 450.330 Project selection from the TIP.
(a) Once a TIP that meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134(j), 49
U.S.C. 5303(j), and Sec. 450.324 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 or where there are significant shifting of projects
between years. In this case, a revised ``agreed to'' list of projects
shall be jointly developed by the MPO, the State, and the public
transportation operator(s) if requested by the MPO, the State, or the
public transportation operator(s). If the State or public
transportation operator(s) wishes to proceed with a project in the
second, third, or fourth 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 public transportation
operator(s) jointly develop expedited project selection procedures to
provide for the advancement of projects from the second, third, or
fourth years of the TIP.
(b) In metropolitan areas not designated as TMAs, projects to be
implemented using title 23, U.S.C. funds (other than Federal Lands
Highway program projects) or funds under title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53,
shall be selected by the State and/or the public transportation
operator(s), in cooperation with the MPO from the approved metropolitan
TIP. Federal Lands Highway program projects shall be selected in
accordance with procedures developed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
(c) In areas designated as TMAs, all 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C.,
Chapter 53 funded projects (excluding projects on the National Highway
System (NHS) and projects funded under the Bridge, Interstate
Maintenance, and Federal Lands Highway programs) shall be selected by
the MPO in consultation with the State and public transportation
operator(s) from the approved TIP and in accordance with the priorities
in the approved TIP. Projects on the NHS and projects funded under the
Bridge and Interstate Maintenance programs shall be selected by the
State in cooperation with the MPO, from the approved TIP. Federal Lands
Highway program projects shall be selected in accordance with
procedures developed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
(d) Except as provided in Sec. 450.324(c) and Sec. 450.328(f),
projects not included in the federally approved STIP shall not be
eligible for funding with funds under title 23, U.S.C., or 49 U.S.C.,
Chapter 53.
(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 EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR
part 93).
[[Page 33550]]
Sec. 450.332 Annual listing of obligated projects.
(a) In metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later
than 90 calendar days following the end of the State program year, the
State, public transportation operator(s), and the MPO shall
cooperatively develop a listing of projects (including investments in
pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) for which
funds under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C., Chapter 53 were obligated in the
preceding program year.
(b) The listing shall be prepared in accordance with Sec.
450.314(a)(1) and shall include all federally funded projects
authorized or revised to increase obligations in the preceding program
year, and shall at a minimum include the TIP information under Sec.
450.324(e)(1) and (4) and identify, for each project, the amount of
Federal funds requested in the TIP, the Federal funding that was
obligated during the preceding year, and the Federal funding remaining
and available for subsequent years.
(c) The listing shall be published or otherwise made available in
accordance with the MPO's public participation criteria for the TIP.
Sec. 450.334 Self-certifications and Federal certifications.
(a) For all MPAs, concurrent with the submittal of the entire
proposed TIP to the FHWA and the FTA as part of the STIP approval, the
State and the MPO shall certify at least every four years that the
metropolitan transportation planning process is being carried out in
accordance with all applicable requirements including:
(1) 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and this subpart;
(2) In 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 40 CFR part 93;
(3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2000d-1), 49 CFR part 21, and 23 CFR part 230;
(4) Section 1101(b) of the SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59) and 49 CFR
part 26 regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises
in USDOT funded projects;
(5) The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38;
(6) The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101),
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance;
(7) Section 324 of title 23, U.S.C., regarding the prohibition of
discrimination based on gender; and
(8) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794)
and 49 CFR part 35 regarding discrimination against individuals with
disabilities.
(b) In TMAs, the FHWA and the FTA jointly shall review and evaluate
the transportation planning process for each TMA no less than once
every four years to determine if the process meets the requirements of
applicable provisions of Federal law and this subpart.
(1) After review and evaluation of the TMA planning process, the
FHWA and FTA shall take one of the following actions:
(i) If the process meets the requirements of this part and a TIP
has been approved by the MPO and the Governor, jointly certify the
transportation planning process;
(ii) If the process substantially meets the requirements of this
part and a TIP has been approved by the MPO and the Governor, jointly
certify the transportation planning process subject to certain
specified corrective actions being taken; or
(iii) If 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 FHWA and the FTA
jointly determine, subject to certain specified corrective actions
being taken.
(2) If, upon the review and evaluation conducted under paragraph
(b)(1)(iii) of this section, the FHWA and the FTA do not certify the
transportation planning process in a TMA, the Secretary may withhold up
to 20 percent of the funds attributable to the metropolitan planning
area of the MPO for projects funded under title 23, U.S.C., and title
49, U.S.C., Chapter 53, in addition to corrective actions and funding
restrictions. The withheld funds shall be restored to the MPA when the
metropolitan transportation planning process is certified by the FHWA
and FTA, unless the funds have lapsed.
(3) A certification of the TMA planning process will remain in
effect for four years unless a new certification determination is made
sooner by the FHWA and the FTA or a shorter term is specified in the
certification report.
(4) In conducting a certification review, the FHWA and the FTA
shall provide opportunities for public involvement within the
metropolitan planning area under review. The FHWA and the FTA shall
consider the public input received in arriving at a decision on a
certification action.
(5) The MPO(s), the State(s), and public transportation operator(s)
shall be notified of the actions taken under paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of this section. The FHWA and the FTA will update the
certification status of the TMA when evidence of satisfactory
completion of a corrective action(s) is provided to the FHWA and the
FTA.
Sec. 450.336 Applicability of NEPA to metropolitan transportation
plans and programs.
Any decision by the FHWA and the FTA concerning a metropolitan
transportation plan or TIP developed through the processes provided for
in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 shall not be considered to be a
Federal action subject to review under NEPA.
Sec. 450.338 Phase-in of new requirements.
(a) Prior to July 1, 2007, metropolitan transportation plans and
TIPs under development since August 10, 2005, may be completed under
TEA-21 requirements. Metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs may
also reflect the provisions of this part prior to July 1, 2007, but
cannot take advantage of the extended update cycles (e.g., four years
for TIPs and four years for metropolitan transportation plans in
nonattainment and maintenance areas) until all provisions and
requirements of this part are reflected in the metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP.
(b) For metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs that are
developed under TEA-21 requirements prior to July 1, 2007, the FHWA/FTA
action (i.e., conformity determinations and STIP approvals) must be
completed no later than June 30, 2007. For metropolitan transportation
plans in attainment areas that are developed under TEA-21 requirements
prior to July 1, 2007, the MPO adoption action must be completed no
later than June 30, 2007. If these actions are completed on or after
July 1, 2007, the provisions and requirements of this part shall take
effect, regardless of when the metropolitan transportation plan or TIP
were developed.
(c) In addition, the applicable action (see paragraph (b) of this
section) on any amendments or updates to metropolitan transportation
plans and TIPs on or after July 1, 2007, shall address the provisions
and requirements of this part.
(d) For new TMAs, the congestion management process described in
Sec. 450.320 shall be implemented within 18 months of the designation
of a new TMA.
[[Page 33551]]
Appendix A to Part 450--Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA
Processes
Background and Overview
For 40 years, the Congress has directed that federally-funded
highway and transit projects must flow from metropolitan and
statewide transportation planning processes (pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306). Over the years, the Congress has
refined and strengthened the transportation planning process as the
foundation for project decisions, emphasizing public involvement,
consideration of environment and other factors, and a Federal role
that oversees the transportation planning process but does not
second-guess the content of transportation plans and programs.
Despite this statutory emphasis on transportation planning, the
environmental analyses produced to meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4231 et
seq.) have often been conducted de novo, disconnected from the
analyses used to develop long-range transportation plans, statewide
and metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs/TIPs),
planning-level corridor/subarea/feasibility studies, or FTA's
planning Alternatives Analyses. When the NEPA and transportation
planning processes are not well coordinated, the NEPA process may
lead to the development of information that is more appropriately
developed in the planning process, resulting in duplication of work
and delays in transportation improvements.
The purpose of this Appendix is to change this culture, by
supporting congressional intent that statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning should be the foundation for highway and
transit project decisions. This Appendix was crafted to recognize
that transportation planning processes vary across the country. This
document provides details on how information, analysis, and products
from transportation planning can be incorporated into and relied
upon in NEPA documents under existing laws, regardless of when the
Notice of Intent has been published. This Appendix presents
environmental review as a continuum of sequential study, refinement,
and expansion performed in transportation planning and during
project development/NEPA, with information developed and conclusions
drawn in early stages utilized in subsequent (and more detailed)
review stages.
The information below is intended for use by State departments
of transportation (State DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs), and public transportation operators to clarify the
circumstances under which transportation planning level choices and
analyses can be adopted or incorporated into the process required by
NEPA. Additionally, the FHWA and the FTA will work with Federal
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies to incorporate the
principles of this Appendix in their day-to-day NEPA policies and
procedures related to their involvement in highway and transit
projects.
This Appendix does not extend NEPA requirements to
transportation plans and programs. The Transportation Efficiency Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
specifically exempted transportation plans and programs from NEPA
review. Therefore, initiating the NEPA process as part of, or
concurrently with, a transportation planning study does not subject
transportation plans and programs to NEPA.
Implementation of this Appendix by States, MPOs, and public
transportation operators is voluntary. The degree to which studies,
analyses, or conclusions from the transportation planning process
can be incorporated into the project development/NEPA processes will
depend upon how well they meet certain standards established by NEPA
regulations and guidance. While some transportation planning
processes already meet these standards, others will need some
modification.
The remainder of this Appendix document utilizes a ``Question
and Answer'' format, organized into three primary categories
(``Procedural,'' ``Substantive,'' and ``Administrative Issues'').
I. Procedural
1. In what format should the transportation planning information be
included?
To be included in the NEPA process, work from the transportation
planning process must be documented in a form that can be appended
to the NEPA document or incorporated by reference. Documents may be
incorporated by reference if they are readily available so as to not
impede agency or public review of the action. Any document
incorporated by reference must be ``reasonably available for
inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed
for comment.'' Incorporated materials must be cited in the NEPA
document and their contents briefly described, so that the reader
understands why the document is cited and knows where to look for
further information. To the extent possible, the documentation
should be in a form such as official actions by the MPO and/or
correspondence within and among the organizations involved in the
transportation planning process.
2. What is a reasonable level of detail for a planning product that is
intended to be used in a NEPA document? How does this level of detail
compare to what is considered a full NEPA analysis?
For purposes of transportation planning alone, a planning-level
analysis does not need to rise to the level of detail required in
the NEPA process. Rather, it needs to be accurate and up-to-date,
and should adequately support recommended improvements in the
statewide or metropolitan long-range transportation plan. The
SAFETEA-LU requires transportation planning processes to focus on
setting a context and following acceptable procedures. For example,
the SAFETEA-LU requires a ``discussion of the types of potential
environmental mitigation activities'' and potential areas for their
implementation, rather than details on specific strategies. The
SAFETEA-LU also emphasizes consultation with Federal, State, and
Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies.
However, the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) ultimately will be judged by the standards
applicable under the NEPA regulations and guidance from the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ). To the extent the information
incorporated from the transportation planning process, standing
alone, does not contain all of the information or analysis required
by NEPA, then it will need to be supplemented by other information
contained in the EIS or EA that would, in conjunction with the
information from the plan, collectively meet the requirements of
NEPA. The intent is not to require NEPA studies in the
transportation planning process. As an option, the NEPA analyses
prepared for project development can be integrated with
transportation planning studies (see the response to Question 9 for
additional information).
3. What type and extent of involvement from Federal, Tribal, State, and
local environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies is needed in the
transportation planning process in order for planning-level decisions
to be more readily accepted in the NEPA process?
Sections 3005, 3006, and 6001 of the SAFETEA-LU established
formal consultation requirements for MPOs and State DOTs to employ
with environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies in the
development of long-range transportation plans. For example,
metropolitan transportation plans now ``shall include a discussion
of the types of potential environmental mitigation activities and
potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities
that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the
environmental functions affected by the [transportation] plan,'' and
that these planning-level discussions ``shall be developed in
consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land management,
wildlife, and regulatory agencies.'' In addition, MPOs ``shall
consult, as appropriate, with State and local agencies responsible
for land use management, natural resources, environmental
protection, conservation, and historic preservation concerning the
development of a long-range transportation plan,'' and that this
consultation ``shall involve, as appropriate, comparison of
transportation plans with State conservation plans or maps, if
available, or comparison of transportation plans to inventories of
natural or historic resources, if available.'' Similar SAFETEA-LU
language addresses the development of the long-range statewide
transportation plan, with the addition of Tribal conservation plans
or maps to this planning-level ``comparison.''
In addition, section 6002 of the SAFETEA-LU established several
mechanisms for increased efficiency in environmental reviews for
project decision-making. For example, the term ``lead agency'' means
the U. S. Department of Transportation and, if applicable, any State
or local government entity serving as a joint lead agency for the
[[Page 33552]]
NEPA process. In addition, the lead agency is responsible for
inviting and designating ``participating agencies'' (i.e., other
Federal or non-Federal agencies that may have an interest in the
proposed project). Any Federal agency that is invited by the lead
agency to participate in the environmental review process for a
project shall be designated as a participating agency by the lead
agency unless the invited agency informs the lead agency, in
writing, by the deadline specified in the invitation that the
invited agency: (a) Has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to
the project; (b) has no expertise or information relevant to the
project; and (c) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
Past successful examples of using transportation planning
products in NEPA analysis are based on early and continuous
involvement of environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies.
Without this early coordination, environmental, regulatory, and
resource agencies are more likely to expect decisions made or
analyses conducted in the transportation planning process to be
revisited during the NEPA process. Early participation in
transportation planning provides environmental, regulatory, and
resource agencies better insight into the needs and objectives of
the locality. Additionally, early participation provides an
important opportunity for environmental, regulatory, and resource
agency concerns to be identified and addressed early in the process,
such as those related to permit applications. Moreover, Federal,
Tribal, and State, and local environmental, regulatory, and resource
agencies are able to share data on particular resources, which can
play a critical role in determining the feasibility of a
transportation solution with respect to environmental impacts. The
use of other agency planning outputs can result in a transportation
project that could support multiple goals (transportation,
environmental, and community). Further, planning decisions by these
other agencies may have impacts on long-range transportation plans
and/or the STIP/TIP, thereby providing important input to the
transportation planning process and advancing integrated decision-
making.
Transportation planning products can provide watershed and
landscape-level approaches to mitigation that address indirect and
cumulative impacts, which must be considered under NEPA. Such broad
scale approaches focus on the natural resources within a particular
ecosystem or watershed and look at the most critical or high quality
resources, rather than focusing narrowly on mitigating at the direct
location of impact. Techniques have been developed to better avoid,
minimize, and mitigate these impacts, as well as the impacts of past
infrastructure projects, on a project-specific basis. However, the
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts used may not always
provide the greatest environmental benefit, or may do very little to
promote ecosystem sustainability. To address concern, the FHWA and
seven other Federal agencies produced Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem
Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. (See http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/ecological.pdf.) Eco-Logical
encourages Federal, State, tribal and local partners involved in
infrastructure planning, design, review, and construction to use
flexibility in regulatory processes. Employing available planning
resources such as each State's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy, Eco-Logical puts forth the conceptual groundwork for
integrating plans across agency boundaries, and endorses ecosystem-
based mitigation--an innovative method of mitigating infrastructure
impacts that cannot be avoided.
The FHWA has emphasized that wetland and natural habitat
mitigation measures, such as wetland and habitat banks or statewide
and regional conservation measures, are eligible for Federal-aid
participation when they are undertaken to create mitigation
resources for future transportation projects. In its March 10, 2005,
memorandum on Wetland and Natural Habitat Mitigation, the FHWA
clarified that, to provide for wetland or other mitigation banks,
the State DOT and the FHWA Division Office should identify potential
future wetlands and habitat mitigation needs for a reasonable time
frame and establish a need for the mitigation credits. The
transportation planning process should guide the determination of
future mitigation needs.'' (See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wetland/wethabmitmem.htm.)
4. What is the procedure for using decisions or analyses from the
transportation planning process?
The FHWA and the FTA, as the lead Federal agencies, will have
the final say on what processes and consultation techniques are used
to determine the transportation planning products that will be
incorporated into the NEPA process. At a minimum, a robust scoping/
early coordination process (which explains to Federal and State
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies and the public the
information and/or analyses utilized to develop the planning
products, how the purpose and need was developed and refined, and
how the design concept and scope were determined) should play a
critical role in leading to informed FHWA/FTA decisions on the
suitability of the transportation planning information, analyses,
documents, and decisions for use in the NEPA process. As part of a
rigorous scoping/early coordination process, the FHWA and the FTA
should ensure that the transportation planning results are
appropriately documented, shared, and used.
5. To what extent can the FHWA/FTA provide up-front assurance that
decisions and additional investments made in the transportation
planning process will allow planning-level decisions and analyses to be
used in the NEPA process?
There are no guarantees. However, the potential is greatly
improved for transportation planning processes that address the ``3-
C'' planning principles (comprehensive, cooperative, and
continuous); incorporate the intent of NEPA through the
consideration of natural, physical, and social effects; involve
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies; thoroughly
document the transportation planning process information, analysis,
and decision; and vet the planning results through the applicable
public involvement processes.
6. What considerations will the FHWA/FTA take into account in their
review of transportation planning products for acceptance in project
development/NEPA?
The FHWA and the FTA will give deference to decisions resulting
from the transportation planning process if the FHWA and FTA
determine that the planning process is consistent with the ``3-C''
planning principles and when the planning study process,
alternatives considered, and resulting decisions have a rational
basis that is thoroughly documented and vetted through the
applicable public involvement processes. Moreover, any applicable
program-specific requirements (e.g., the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program or the FTA's Capital Investment
Grant program) also must be met.
The NEPA requires that the FHWA and the FTA be able to stand
behind the overall soundness and credibility of analyses conducted
and decisions made during the transportation planning process if
they are incorporated into a NEPA document. For example, if systems-
level or other broad objectives or choices from the transportation
plan are incorporated into the purpose and need statement for a NEPA
document, the FHWA and the FTA should not revisit whether these are
the best objectives or choices among other options. Rather, the FHWA
and the FTA review would include making sure that objectives or
choices derived from the transportation plan were: Based on
transportation planning factors established by Federal law; reflect
a credible and articulated planning rationale; founded on reliable
data; and developed through transportation planning processes
meeting FHWA and FTA statutory and regulatory requirements. In
addition, the basis for the goals and choices must be documented and
included in the NEPA document. The FHWA/FTA reviewers do not need to
review whether assumptions or analytical methods used in the studies
are the best available, but, instead, need to assure that such
assumptions or analytical methods are reasonable, scientifically
acceptable, and consistent with goals, objectives, and policies set
forth in long-range transportation plans. This review would include
determining whether: (a) Assumptions have a rational basis and are
up-to-date and (b) data, analytical methods, and modeling techniques
are reliable, defensible, reasonably current, and meet data quality
requirements.
II. Substantive
General Issues To Be Considered
7. What should be considered in order to rely upon transportation
planning studies in NEPA?
The following questions should be answered prior to accepting
studies conducted during the transportation planning process for use
in NEPA. While not a ``checklist,'' these questions are intended to
[[Page 33553]]
guide the practitioner's analysis of the planning products:
How much time has passed since the planning studies and
corresponding decisions were made?
Were the future year policy assumptions used in the
NEPA study related to land use, economic development, transportation
costs, and network expansion consistent with those developed and
used in the transportation planning process?
Is the information still relevant/valid?
What changes have occurred in the area since the study
was completed?
Is the information in a format that can be appended to
an environmental document or reformatted to do so?
Are the analyses in a planning-level report or document
based on data, analytical methods, and modeling techniques that are
reliable, defensible, and consistent with that used in other
regional transportation studies and project development activities?
Were the FHWA and FTA, other agencies, and the public
involved in the relevant planning analysis and the corresponding
planning decisions?
Were the planning products available to other agencies
at NEPA scoping?
At NEPA scoping, was a clear connection between the
decisions made in planning and those to be made during the project
development stage explained to the public and others? What was the
response?
Are natural resource and land use plans being informed
by transportation planning products, and vice versa?
Purpose and Need
8. How can transportation planning be used to shape a project's purpose
and need in the NEPA process?
A sound transportation planning process is the primary source of
the project purpose and need. Through transportation planning, State
and local governments, with involvement of stakeholders and the
public, establish a vision for the region's future transportation
system, define transportation goals and objectives for realizing
that vision, decide which needs to address, and determine the
timeframe for addressing these issues. The transportation planning
process also provides a potential forum to define a project's
purpose and need by framing the scope of the problem to be addressed
by a proposed project. This scope may be further refined during the
transportation planning process as more information about the
transportation need is collected and consultation with the public
and other stakeholders clarifies other issues and goals for the
region.
Section 6002 of the SAFETEA-LU also provided additional focus
regarding the definition of the purpose and need and objectives. For
example, the lead agency, as early as practicable during the
environmental review process, shall provide an opportunity for
involvement by participating agencies and the public in defining the
purpose and need for a project. The statement of purpose and need
shall include a clear statement of the objectives that the proposed
action is intended to achieve, which may include: (a) Achieving a
transportation objective identified in an applicable statewide or
metropolitan transportation plan; (b) supporting land use, economic
development, or growth objectives established in applicable Federal,
State, local, or Tribal plans; and (c) serving national defense,
national security, or other national objectives, as established in
Federal laws, plans, or policies.
The transportation planning process can be utilized to develop
the purpose and need in the following ways:
(a) Goals and objectives from the transportation planning
process may be part of the project's purpose and need statement;
(b) A general travel corridor or general mode or modes (i.e.,
highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination) resulting from
planning analyses may be part of the project's purpose and need
statement;
(c) If the financial plan for a metropolitan transportation plan
indicates that funding for a specific project will require special
funding sources (e.g., tolls or public-private financing), such
information may be included in the purpose and need statement; or
(d) The results of analyses from management systems (e.g.,
congestion, pavement, bridge, and/or safety) may shape the purpose
and need statement.
The use of these planning-level goals and choices must be
appropriately explained in the NEPA document.
Consistent with NEPA, the purpose and need statement should be a
statement of a transportation problem, not a specific solution.
However, the purpose and need statement should be specific enough to
generate alternatives that may potentially yield real solutions to
the problem at-hand. A purpose and need statement that yields only
one alternative may indicate a purpose and need that is too narrowly
defined.
Short of a fully integrated transportation decisionmaking
process, many State DOTs develop information for their purpose and
need statements when implementing interagency NEPA/Section 404
process merger agreements. These agreements may need to be expanded
to include commitments to share and utilize transportation planning
products when developing a project's purpose and need.
9. Under what conditions can the NEPA process be initiated in
conjunction with transportation planning studies?
The NEPA process may be initiated in conjunction with
transportation planning studies in a number of ways. A common method
is the ``tiered EIS,'' in which general travel corridors, modes,
and/or packages of projects are evaluated at a planning level of
detail, leading to the refinement of purpose and need and, ideally,
selection of the design concept and scope for a subsequent project
or series of projects. The tiered EIS uses the NEPA process as a
tool to involve environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies and
the public in these decisions, as well as to ensure the appropriate
consideration of environmental factors in these planning-level
decisions.
Corridor or subarea analyses/studies are another option when the
long-range transportation plan leaves open the possibility of
multiple approaches to fulfill its goals and objectives. In such
cases, the formal NEPA process could be initiated through
publication of a NOI in conjunction with a corridor or subarea
study. Similarly, some public transportation operators developing
major capital projects perform the planning Alternatives Analysis
required for funding under FTA's Capital Investment Grant program
found in 49 U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e) within the NEPA process and
combine the planning Alternatives Analysis with the draft NEPA
document.
Alternatives
10. In the context of this Appendix, what is the meaning of the term
``alternatives?''
This Appendix uses the term ``alternatives'' as specified in the
NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14), where it is defined in its
broadest sense to include everything from major modal alternatives
and location alternatives to minor design changes that would
mitigate adverse impacts. This Appendix does not use the term as it
is used in many other contexts (e.g., ``prudent and feasible
alternatives'' under Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act, the ``Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative'' under the Clean Water Act, or the planning
Alternatives Analysis in 49 U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e)).
However, as early as possible in the transportation planning
stage of any project, a determination should be made as to whether
the alternatives to be considered will need to be used to satisfy
multiple statutory and regulatory requirements that will be
addressed during the subsequent project development process as an
integral part of the NEPA process. If so, during transportation
planning, the alternatives chosen for consideration and the analysis
of those alternatives should reflect the multiple objectives that
must be addressed. For example, if a potential project would require
a Section 404 permit, ideally there would be coordination with the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and some level of agreement from
the COE that the alternatives considered are broad enough to allow
for the ultimate development of a Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative. In this case, screening of alternatives for
the presence of important wetlands based on geographic information
systems (GIS) or other planning-level data sources would be
appropriate to support this early determination.
11. Under what circumstances can alternatives be eliminated from
detailed consideration during the NEPA process based on information and
analysis from the transportation planning process?
There are two ways in which the transportation planning process
can begin limiting the alternative solutions to be evaluated during
the NEPA process: (a) Shaping the purpose and need for the project;
or (b) evaluating alternatives during planning studies and
eliminating some of the alternatives from detailed study in the NEPA
process prior to the start of the project-level NEPA process. Each
approach requires careful attention, and is summarized below.
(a) Shaping the Purpose and Need for the Project: The
transportation planning process
[[Page 33554]]
should shape the purpose and need and, thereby, the range of
reasonable alternatives. With proper documentation and public
involvement, a purpose and need derived from the planning process
can legitimately narrow the alternatives analyzed in the NEPA
process. See the response to Question 8 for further discussion on
how the planning process can shape the purpose and need used in the
NEPA process.
For example, the purpose and need may be shaped by the
transportation planning process in a manner that consequently
narrows the range of alternatives that must be considered in detail
in the NEPA document when:
(1) The transportation planning process has selected a general
travel corridor as best addressing identified transportation
problems and the rationale for the determination in the planning
document is reflected in the purpose and need statement of the
subsequent NEPA document;
(2) The transportation planning process has selected a general
mode (i.e., highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination) that
accomplishes its goals and objectives, and these documented
determinations are reflected in the purpose and need statement of
the subsequent NEPA document; or
(3) The transportation planning process determines that the
project needs to be funded by tolls or other non-traditional funding
sources in order for the long-range transportation plan to be
fiscally constrained or identifies goals and objectives that can
only be met by toll roads or other non-traditional funding sources,
and that determination of those goals and objectives is reflected in
the purpose and need statement of the subsequent NEPA document.
(b) Evaluating and Eliminating Alternatives During the
Transportation Planning Process: The evaluation and elimination of
alternatives during the transportation planning process can be
incorporated by reference into a NEPA document under certain
circumstances. In these cases, the planning study becomes part of
the NEPA process and provides a basis for screening out
alternatives. As with any part of the NEPA process, the analysis of
alternatives to be incorporated from the process must have a
rational basis that has been thoroughly documented (including
documentation of the necessary and appropriate vetting through the
applicable public involvement processes). This record should be made
available for public review during the NEPA scoping process.
See responses to Questions 4, 5, 6, and 7 for additional
elements to consider with respect to acceptance of planning products
for NEPA documentation and the response to Question 12 on the
information or analysis from the transportation planning process
necessary for supporting the elimination of an alternative(s) from
detailed consideration in the NEPA process.
For instance, under FTA's Capital Investment Grant program, the
alternatives considered in the NEPA process may be narrowed in those
instances that the planning Alternatives Analysis required by 49
U.S.C. 5309(e) is conducted as a planning study prior to the NEPA
review. In fact, the FTA may be able to narrow the alternatives
considered in detail in the NEPA document to the No-Build (No
Action) alternative and the Locally Preferred Alternative.
Alternatives must meet the following criteria if they are deemed
sufficiently considered by a planning Alternatives Analysis under
FTA's Capital Investment Grant program conducted prior to NEPA
without a programmatic NEPA analysis and documentation:
During the planning Alternatives Analysis, all of the
reasonable alternatives under consideration must be fully evaluated
in terms of their transportation impacts; capital and operating
costs; social, economic, and environmental impacts; and technical
considerations;
There must be appropriate public involvement in the
planning Alternatives Analysis;
The appropriate Federal, State, and local
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies must be engaged in
the planning Alternatives Analysis;
The results of the planning Alternatives Analysis must
be documented;
The NEPA scoping participants must agree on the
alternatives that will be considered in the NEPA review; and
The subsequent NEPA document must include the
evaluation of alternatives from the planning Alternatives Analysis.
The above criteria apply specifically to FTA's Capital
Investment Grant process. However, for other transportation
projects, if the planning process has included the analysis and
stakeholder involvement that would be undertaken in a first tier
NEPA process, then the alternatives screening conducted in the
transportation planning process may be incorporated by reference,
described, and relied upon in the project-level NEPA document. At
that point, the project-level NEPA analysis can focus on the
remaining alternatives.
12. What information or analysis from the transportation planning
process is needed in an EA or EIS to support the elimination of an
alternative(s) from detailed consideration?
The section of the EA or EIS that discusses alternatives
considered but eliminated from detailed consideration should:
(a) Identify any alternatives eliminated during the
transportation planning process (this could include broad categories
of alternatives, as when a long-range transportation plan selects a
general travel corridor based on a corridor study, thereby
eliminating all alternatives along other alignments);
(b) Briefly summarize the reasons for eliminating the
alternative; and
(c) Include a summary of the analysis process that supports the
elimination of alternatives (the summary should reference the
relevant sections or pages of the analysis or study) and incorporate
it by reference or append it to the NEPA document.
Any analyses or studies used to eliminate alternatives from
detailed consideration should be made available to the public and
affected agencies during the NEPA scoping process and should be
reasonably available during comment periods.
Alternatives passed over during the transportation planning
process because they are infeasible or do not meet the NEPA
``purpose and need'' can be omitted from the detailed analysis of
alternatives in the NEPA document, as long as the rationale for
elimination is explained in the NEPA document. Alternatives that
remain ``reasonable'' after the planning-level analysis must be
addressed in the EIS, even when they clearly are not the preferred
alternative. When the proposed action evaluated in an EA involves
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available
resources, NEPA requires that appropriate alternatives be studied,
developed, and described.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
13. What types of planning products provide analysis of the affected
environment and environmental consequences that are useful in a
project-level NEPA analysis and document?
The following planning products are valuable inputs to the
discussion of the affected environment and environmental
consequences (both its current state and future state in the absence
of the proposed action) in the project-level NEPA analysis and
document:
Regional development and growth analyses;
Local land use, growth management, or development
plans; and
Population and employment projections.
The following are types of information, analysis, and other
products from the transportation planning process that can be used
in the discussion of the affected environment and environmental
consequences in an EA or EIS:
(a) GIS overlays showing the past, current, or predicted future
conditions of the natural and built environments;
(b) Environmental scans that identify environmental resources
and environmentally sensitive areas;
(c) Descriptions of airsheds and watersheds;
(d) Demographic trends and forecasts;
(e) Projections of future land use, natural resource
conservation areas, and development; and
(f) The outputs of natural resource planning efforts, such as
wildlife conservation plans, watershed plans, and multiple species
habitat conservation plans.
However, in most cases, the assessment of the affected
environment and environmental consequences conducted during the
transportation planning process will not be detailed enough to meet
NEPA standards and, thus, the inventory and evaluation of affected
resources and the analysis of consequences of the alternatives will
need to be supplemented with more refined analysis and possibly
site-specific details during the NEPA process.
14. What information from the transportation planning process is useful
in describing a baseline for the NEPA analysis of indirect and
cumulative impacts?
Because the nature of the transportation planning process is to
look broadly at future
[[Page 33555]]
land use, development, population increases, and other growth
factors, the planning analysis can provide the basis for the
assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts required under NEPA.
The consideration in the transportation planning process of
development, growth, and consistency with local land use, growth
management, or development plans, as well as population and
employment projections, provides an overview of the multitude of
factors in an area that are creating pressures not only on the
transportation system, but on the natural ecosystem and important
environmental and community resources. An analysis of all reasonably
foreseeable actions in the area also should be a part of the
transportation planning process. This planning-level information
should be captured and utilized in the analysis of indirect and
cumulative impacts during the NEPA process.
To be used in the analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts,
such information should:
(a) Be sufficiently detailed that differences in consequences of
alternatives can be readily identified;
(b) Be based on current data (e.g., data from the most recent
Census) or be updated by additional information;
(c) Be based on reasonable assumptions that are clearly stated;
and/or
(d) Rely on analytical methods and modeling techniques that are
reliable, defensible, and reasonably current.
Environmental Mitigation
15. How can planning-level efforts best support advanced mitigation,
banking, and priorities for environmental mitigation investments?
A lesson learned from efforts to establish mitigation banks and
advance mitigation agreements and alternative mitigation options is
the importance of beginning interagency discussions during the
transportation planning process. Development pressures, habitat
alteration, complicated real estate transactions, and competition
for potential mitigation sites by public and private project
proponents can encumber the already difficult task of mitigating for
``like'' value and function and reinforce the need to examine
mitigation strategies as early as possible.
Robust use of remote sensing, GIS, and decision support systems
for evaluating conservation strategies are all contributing to the
advancement of natural resource and environmental planning. The
outputs from environmental planning can now better inform
transportation planning processes, including the development of
mitigation strategies, so that transportation and conservation goals
can be optimally met. For example, long-range transportation plans
can be screened to assess the effect of general travel corridors or
density, on the viability of sensitive plant and animal species or
habitats. This type of screening provides a basis for early
collaboration among transportation and environmental staffs, the
public, and regulatory agencies to explore areas where impacts must
be avoided and identify areas for mitigation investments. This can
lead to mitigation strategies that are both more economical and more
effective from an environmental stewardship perspective than
traditional project-specific mitigation measures.
III. Administrative Issues
16. Are Federal funds eligible to pay for these additional, or more in
depth, environmental studies in transportation planning?
Yes. For example, the following FHWA and FTA funds may be
utilized for conducting environmental studies and analyses within
transportation planning:
FHWA planning and research funds, as defined under 23
CFR part 420 (e.g., Metropolitan Planning (PL), Statewide Planning
and Research (SPR), National Highway System (NHS), Surface
Transportation Program (STP), and Equity Bonus); and
FTA planning and research funds (49 U.S.C. 5303 and 49
U.S.C. 5313(b)), urban formula funds (49 U.S.C. 5307), and (in
limited circumstances) transit capital investment funds (49 U.S.C.
5309).
The eligible transportation planning-related uses of these funds
may include: (a) Conducting feasibility or subarea/corridor needs
studies and (b) developing system-wide environmental information/
inventories (e.g., wetland banking inventories or standards to
identify historically significant sites). Particularly in the case
of PL and SPR funds, the proposed expenditure must be closely
related to the development of transportation plans and programs
under 23 U.S.C. 134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306.
For FHWA funding programs, once a general travel corridor or
specific project has progressed to a point in the preliminary
engineering/NEPA phase that clearly extends beyond transportation
planning, additional in-depth environmental studies must be funded
through the program category for which the ultimate project
qualifies (e.g., NHS, STP, Interstate Maintenance, and/or Bridge),
rather than PL or SPR funds.
Another source of funding is FHWA's Transportation Enhancement
program, which may be used for activities such as: Conducting
archeological planning and research; developing inventories such as
those for historic bridges and highways, and other surface
transportation-related structures; conducting studies to determine
the extent of water pollution due to highway runoff; and conducting
studies to reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while
maintaining habitat connectivity.
The FHWA and the FTA encourage State DOTs, MPOs, and public
transportation operators to seek partners for some of these studies
from environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies, non-
government organizations, and other government and private sector
entities with similar data needs, or environmental interests. In
some cases, these partners may contribute data and expertise to the
studies, as well as funding.
17. What staffing or organizational arrangements may be helpful in
allowing planning products to be accepted in the NEPA process?
Certain organizational and staffing arrangements may support a
more integrated approach to the planning/NEPA decision-making
continuum. In many cases, planning organizations do not have
environmental expertise on staff or readily accessible. Likewise,
the review and regulatory responsibilities of many environmental,
regulatory, and resource agencies make involvement in the
transportation planning process a challenge for staff resources.
These challenges may be partially met by improved use of the outputs
of each agency's planning resources and by augmenting their
capabilities through greater use of GIS and remote sensing
technologies (see http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/ for additional
information on the use of GIS). Sharing databases and the planning
products of local land use decision-makers and State and Federal
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies also provide
efficiencies in acquiring and sharing the data and information
needed for both transportation planning and NEPA work.
Additional opportunities such as shared staff, training across
disciplines, and (in some cases) reorganizing to eliminate
structural divisions between planning and NEPA practitioners may
also need to be considered in order to better integrate NEPA
considerations into transportation planning studies. The answers to
the following two questions also contain useful information on
training and staffing opportunities.
18. How have environmental, regulatory, and resource agency liaisons
(Federally- and State DOT-funded positions) and partnership agreements
been used to provide the expertise and interagency participation needed
to enhance the consideration of environmental factors in the planning
process?
For several years, States have utilized Federal and State
transportation funds to support focused and accelerated project
review by a variety of local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies.
While Section 1309(e) of the TEA-21 spoke specifically to
transportation project streamlining, there are other authorities
that have been used to fund positions, such as the Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. 6505). In addition, long-term, on-call
consultant contracts can provide backfill support for staff that are
detailed to other parts of an agency for temporary assignments. At
last count (as of 2003), 246 positions were being funded. Additional
information on interagency funding agreements is available at:
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/igdocs/index.htm.
Moreover, every State has advanced a variety of stewardship and
streamlining initiatives that necessitate early involvement of
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies in the project
development process. Such process improvements have: Addressed the
exchange of data to support avoidance and impact analysis;
established formal and informal consultation and review schedules;
advanced mitigation strategies; and resulted in a variety of
programmatic reviews. Interagency agreements and workplans have
evolved to describe performance objectives, as well as specific
roles and responsibilities related to new streamlining initiatives.
Some States have improved collaboration and
[[Page 33556]]
efficiency by co-locating environmental, regulatory, and resource
and transportation agency staff.
19.What training opportunities are available to MPOs, State DOTs,
public transportation operators and environmental, regulatory, and
resource agencies to assist in their understanding of the
transportation planning and NEPA processes?
Both the FHWA and the FTA offer a variety of transportation
planning, public involvement, and NEPA courses through the National
Highway Institute and/or the National Transit Institute. Of
particular note is the Linking Planning and NEPA Workshop, which
provides a forum and facilitated group discussion among and between
State DOT; MPO; Federal, Tribal, and State environmental,
regulatory, and resource agencies; and FHWA/FTA representatives (at
both the executive and program manager levels) to develop a State-
specific action plan that will provide for strengthened linkages
between the transportation planning and NEPA processes.
Moreover, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service offers Green
Infrastructure Workshops that are focused on integrating planning
for natural resources (``green infrastructure'') with the
development, economic, and other infrastructure needs of society
(``gray infrastructure'').
Robust planning and multi-issue environmental screening requires
input from a wide variety of disciplines, including information
technology; transportation planning; the NEPA process; and
regulatory, permitting, and environmental specialty areas (e.g.,
noise, air quality, and biology). Senior managers at transportation
and partner agencies can arrange a variety of individual training
programs to support learning curves and skill development that
contribute to a strengthened link of the transportation planning and
NEPA processes. Formal and informal mentoring on an intra-agency
basis can be arranged. Employee exchanges within and between
agencies can be periodically scheduled, and persons involved with
professional leadership programs can seek temporary assignments with
partner agencies.
Transportation planning and NEPA courses offered by various
agencies and private sources have been compiled as part of the
Executive Order 13274 (Environmental Stewardship and Transportation
Infrastructure Project Reviews) workgroup efforts. This list is
posted at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/index.htm.
IV. Additional Information on This Topic
Valuable sources of information are FHWA's environmental
streamlining Web site (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/index.htm) and FTA's environmental streamlining Web site (http://www.environment.fta.dot.gov). Another source of information and case
studies is NCHRP Report 8-38 (Consideration of Environmental Factors
in Transportation Systems Planning), which is available at http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+8-38. In addition,
AASHTO's Center for Environmental Excellence Web site is
continuously updated with news and links to information of interest
to transportation and environmental professionals (http://www.transportation.environment.org).
Appendix B to Part 450--Fiscal Constraint of Transportation Plans and
Programs [Revised]
Background
For over 40 years, the Congress has directed that federally-
funded highway and transit projects must flow from metropolitan and
statewide transportation planning processes (pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5304). The Congress further refined and
strengthened the planning process as the foundation for project
decisions when it first enacted fiscal constraint provisions for
transportation plans and programs as part of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).
Fiscal constraint requires that revenues (Federal, State, local,
and private) in transportation planning and programming are
identified and ``reasonably expected to be available'' to implement
projects required to be included in the metropolitan transportation
plan, metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), while providing
for the operation and maintenance of the existing highway and
transit systems. Fiscal constraint has remained a key component of
transportation plan and program development with the enactment of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998
and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) on August 10, 2005.
The fiscal constraint requirement is intended to ensure that
metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, and STIPs reflect realistic
assumptions about future revenues, rather than extensive lists
including more projects than could realistically be completed with
available revenues. Importantly, for the purposes of developing the
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP, the MPO, State DOT, and
public transportation operator(s) must cooperatively develop
estimates of funds that will be available to support plan and
program implementation [23 U.S.C. 134 (i)(2)(C), 23 U.S.C.
134(j)(1)(C), 49 U.S.C. 5301(a)(1), 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(C), and 49
U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(C)]. In addition, the Clean Air Act's
transportation conformity regulations specify that a conformity
determination can only be made on a fiscally constrained
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP [40 CFR 93.108]. Given this
intent, compliance with the fiscal constraint requirement entails an
analysis of revenues and costs to address the following fundamental
question:
``Will the revenues (Federal, State, local, and private)
identified in the TIP, STIP, or metropolitan transportation plan
cover the anticipated costs of the projects included in this TIP,
STIP, or metropolitan transportation plan, along with operation and
maintenance of the existing system?''
If the projected revenues are sufficient to cover the costs, and
the estimates of both revenues and costs are reasonable, then the
fiscal constraint requirement has been satisfied. Additionally,
projects in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas can be
included in the first two years of the TIP and STIP only if funds
are ``available or committed.''
The FHWA and the FTA also realize the challenges associated with
forecasting project and program costs and revenues, particularly in
the ``outer years'' of a metropolitan transportation plan.
Therefore, the FHWA/FTA provide a great deal of flexibility in
demonstrating fiscal constraint. For example, in years when a
Federal transportation authorization bill is not yet enacted, State
DOTs, MPOs, and public transportation operators may project and
assume Federal revenues for the ``outer years'' based on a trend
line projection. Additional information is provided in the following
sections and the ``Questions and Answers.''
``Reasonably Available'' Future Revenues and ``Available or Committed''
Funds
Revenue forecasts to support projects required to be included in
a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP may take into
account new funding sources that are ``reasonably expected to be
available.'' New funding sources are revenues that do not currently
exist or that may require additional steps before the State DOT,
MPO, or public transportation operator can commit such funding to
transportation projects. As first required in ISTEA, these planned
new revenue sources must be clearly identified.
Future revenues may be projected based on historic trends,
including consideration of past legislative or executive actions.
The level of uncertainty in projections based on historical trends
is generally greatest for revenues in the ``outer years'' of a
metropolitan transportation plan (i.e., those beyond the first 10
years of the metropolitan transportation plan). Additionally, for
purposes of developing the financial plan to support the
metropolitan transportation plan, the FHWA and the FTA encourage the
use of aggregate ``cost ranges/cost bands'' to define costs in the
outer years of the metropolitan transportation plan, with the caveat
that the future funding sources must be ``reasonably available.''
To support air quality planning under the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, a special requirement has been placed on air quality
nonattainment and maintenance areas, as designated by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Specifically, projects in air
quality nonattainment and maintenance areas can be included in the
first two years of the TIP and STIP only if funds are ``available or
committed.'' Additionally, EPA's transportation conformity
regulations specify that an air quality conformity determination can
only be made on a fiscally constrained metropolitan transportation
plan and TIP [40 CFR 93.108]. Therefore, nonattainment and
maintenance areas may not rely upon proposed new taxes or other new
revenue sources for the first two years of the TIP and STIP. Thus,
new funding from a proposed gas tax increase, a proposed regional
sales tax, or a major funding increase still under debate would not
qualify as
[[Page 33557]]
``available or committed'' until it has been enacted by legislation
or referendum.
Changes in Revenues or Costs After the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan, TIP, or STIP are Adopted
In cases that the FHWA and the FTA find a metropolitan
transportation plan or TIP/STIP to be fiscally constrained and a
revenue source is subsequently removed (i.e., by legislative or
administrative actions), the FHWA and the FTA will not withdraw the
original determination of fiscal constraint. In such cases, the FHWA
and the FTA will require the State DOT or MPO to identify
alternative sources of revenue as soon as possible. Importantly, the
FHWA and FTA will not act on new or amended metropolitan
transportation plan, TIP, or STIP unless they reflect the changed
revenue situation.
The same policy applies if project costs or operations/
maintenance cost estimates change after a metropolitan
transportation plan, TIP, or STIP are adopted. Such a change in cost
estimates does not invalidate the adopted transportation plan or
program. However, the revised costs must be provided in new or
amended metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP. The FHWA and
the FTA will not approve new or amended STIPs that are based on
outdated or invalid cost estimates.
System Preservation, Operations, and Maintenance Costs
Since the enactment of ISTEA in 1991, fiscal constraint has
encompassed operation and maintenance (O&M) of the system, as well
as capital projects. On one hand, O&M activities typically do not
involve Federal funds and are not listed individually in a
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP. However, the
financial plans that support the metropolitan and statewide
transportation planning processes must assess the adequacy of all
sources of capital and O&M investment necessary to ensure the
preservation of the existing transportation system, including
provisions 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. To support this assessment,
the FHWA and the FTA expect that the State DOT, MPO, and public
transportation operator(s) will provide credible cost estimates.
However, the FHWA and FTA largely defer to State and local
governments and public transportation operators to define the
specific level of systems O&M that is appropriate, since the FHWA
and the FTA do not mandate a particular, specific level of O&M.
Instead, the Federal government accepts that State and local
governments, MPOs, and public transportation operators will adjust
their O&M from year-to-year and decade-to-decade, based on community
desires and requirements established through an open transportation
planning process.
Outside the transportation planning process, there also is a
longstanding Federal requirement that States properly maintain, or
cause to be maintained, any projects constructed under the Federal-
aid Highway Program [23 U.S.C. 116]. However, beyond this basic
requirement of proper maintenance, the FHWA and the FTA do not
question State and local government, MPO, or public transportation
operator decisions on specific uses of funding or question State and
local priorities that balance the operation and maintenance of the
existing transportation system with needs for transportation system
expansion. Instead, the FHWA and the FTA ensure that the process
used by the State DOT, MPO, and public transportation operator(s) to
establish priorities is consistent with the transportation planning
statute and regulations and that the funding sources identified to
address these priorities are ``reasonably expected to be
available.'' In addition, consistent with regulations implementing
the Clean Air Act, the FHWA and the FTA will also continue to assure
that priority is given to the timely implementation of
transportation control measures in the air quality State
Implementation Plan [40 CFR 93.103 and 40 CFR 93.116].
There is a subtle yet important distinction between projects or
project phases listed in the TIP/STIP and the financial plan/
financial information that supports the TIP/STIP. It is not required
that all highway and transit O&M projects be included in the TIP/
STIP, per se. However, these systems-level O&M costs and revenues
must be reflected in the financial plan that accompanies and
supports the TIP/STIP. Similarly, the O&M costs reflected in the
financial plan for the first two years of the TIP/STIP in
nonattainment and maintenance areas are not subject to the
``available or committed'' requirement. Rather, they must be
``reasonably expected to be available.''
Funding Gaps
Substantial investments have been made in highway and transit
infrastructure. The short- and long-term needs for system
preservation, operation, and maintenance can be enormous. Simply
maintaining the existing system in a State or large metropolitan
area can demand billions of dollars in investments, while system
expansion demands investments of a similar scale. At times, the
combination of these competing demands can cause temporary
shortfalls in a State's or MPO's budget. To the extent there appear
to be shortfalls, the MPO or State DOT must identify a strategy to
address these funding gaps prior to the adoption of an updated
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP (or the amendment of
an existing metropolitan transportation plan, TIP or STIP). The
strategy should include a plan of action that describes the steps
that will be taken to make funding available within the timeframe
shown in the financial plan needed to implement the projects in the
metropolitan transportation plan. The strategy may rely upon the
past history of the State, MPO, or public transportation operator(s)
to obtain funding. If the strategy relies on new funding sources,
the MPO, State, public transportation operator(s) must demonstrate
that these funds are ``reasonably expected to be available.''
Questions and Answers
Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP and TIP):
1. How should Federal and State funding be reflected in the TIP
and STIP?
The Federal funding reflected in the TIP and STIP may be based
on authorization levels for each year of the TIP and/or STIP,
although obligation authority limitations could be utilized as a
more conservative approach. In addition, for federally-funded
projects, the TIP and/or STIP must identify the appropriate
``matched funds,'' by source. Importantly, because the State DOT
will be involved in the development of all TIPs (as well as the
STIP), the cumulative total of the State/Federal funds in the TIPs
and STIP must not exceed, on an annual basis, the total State/
Federal funds reasonably available to the State.
Financial forecasts (for revenues and costs) to develop TIPs and
STIPs (as well as for metropolitan transportation plans) must
utilize an inflation rate to reflect ``year of expenditure dollars''
to account for the time-based value of money. The inflation rate(s)
should be based on sound, reasonable financial principles and
information, developed cooperatively by the State DOT, MPOs, and
public transportation operators. To ensure consistency, similar
financial forecasting approaches should be utilized for all TIPs and
STIPs in a given State. In addition, the financial forecast
approaches, assumptions, and results should be clear and well-
documented.
2. How should transit O&M activities and costs be treated in the
TIP and STIP and their supporting financial plans?
With the exception of federally-supported transit operating
costs in urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000, transit
O&M activities are not required to be listed individually in the
TIP, STIP, and metropolitan transportation plan. However, the
supporting financial plans for the TIP, STIP, and metropolitan
transportation plan must demonstrate the ability of operators to
adequately operate and maintain their existing systems, as well as
the new projects and strategies listed in the TIP, STIP, and
metropolitan transportation plan. ``Adequate'' levels of transit
service and associated O&M costs are determined by local officials,
who may decide to defer maintenance and/or increase operating
revenues as a means of balancing their budgets.
3. How exact should the funding estimates for O&M be for the
financial plans/information that support the TIP and STIP?
Revenue and cost estimates for O&M will be more general than
estimates for individual projects. For the financial plan that must
accompany the TIP, the MPO may rely on the information contained in
the financial plan that supports the metropolitan transportation
plan to develop four-year ``snapshot'' estimates of O&M funding
sources and costs. Similarly for the STIP, the State DOT may utilize
other documents (e.g., the long-range statewide transportation plan
and/or State DOT budget information) to demonstrate sufficient
resources for the operations and maintenance of the State surface
[[Page 33558]]
transportation system for at least the time period covered by the
STIP. O&M involving local and/or State funds may be shown as a
``grouped line item'' in the financial plans for the TIP and STIP.
The FHWA and the FTA generally rely on the overall O&M
information and analysis provided in support of the metropolitan and
statewide transportation plans, including information on substantial
changes to revenue streams for short-term (i.e., programming-level)
operations and maintenance expenditures. It is also reasonable to
rely on supplemental State DOT information for non-metropolitan
areas if similar information and/or analysis are not contained in a
financial plan for the long-range statewide transportation plan or
the TIP and STIP. Additionally, knowledge of local and/or State
funding levels and previous year expenditures related to operations
and maintenance compared to systems-level performance measures
(e.g., pavement and/or bridge conditions) can provide insightful
information on the reasonableness of future local and/or State
investments on highway and transit O&M.
Possible sources of data for O&M revenues and costs for States
and MPOs to use in collecting this information for the State and
local highway systems include the Highway Statistics \1\
publication, capital improvement programs or budgets, and pavement
management systems. For transit O&M costs, the best data sources
likely are the public transportation operators and/or the units of
government that are responsible for the public transit system(s), as
well as the information contained in FTA's financial capacity
reviews conducted for its Section 5307 (Urbanized Formula) and
Section 5309 (New Starts, Bus, and Rail Modernization) programs.\2\
The key is for State DOTs, MPOs, and public transportation operators
(via the ``3-C'' planning process) to coordinate with the various
local agencies to determine the best sources of these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FHWA's Highway Statistics Series consists of annual
reports containing analyzed statistical data on motor fuel; motor
vehicles; driver licensing; highway-user taxation; State and local
government highway finance; highway mileage, and Federal-aid for
highways. These data are presented in tabular format as well as
selected charts and have been published each year since 1945. The
annual Highway Statistics reports are available from the FHWA's
Office of Highway Policy Information at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/index.htm.
\2\ Additional information on FTA's Section 5307 and Section
5309 programs is available from the FTA at http://www.fta.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a condition for applying for grants under FTA's Section 5307
and Section 5309 programs, public transportation operators are
required to self-certify their financial capacity to pay current
costs from existing revenues and to meet expansion costs in addition
to their existing operations from projected revenues. The FTA
assesses the adequacy of financial capacity self-certifications at
the TIP/STIP approval stage and for any capital grant approval
(FTA's Capital Investment Grant program in 49 U.S.C. 5309 includes
additional financial assessment requirements). Similar to the joint
FHWA/FTA certification of the metropolitan panning processes in
Transportation Management Areas, deficiencies are recorded for
grantees that do not meet financial capacity requirements. The
requirements, set forth in FTA Circular 7800.1A (Financial Capacity
Policy),\3\ call for public transportation operators to ``* *
*maintain and operate current assets, and to operate and maintain
the new assets on the same basis, providing at least the same level
of service for at least one replacement cycle, or 20 years, as
appropriate.'' Public transportation operators could attach their
financial capacity self-certifications, with appropriate supporting
information, to the financial plan supporting the TIP/STIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FTA Circular 7800.1A (Financial Capacity Policy) was last
updated on January 30, 2002, and is available from the FTA at http://www.fta.dot.gov/legal/guidance/circulars/7000/424_1081_ENG_HTML.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Must innovative finance mechanisms be reflected in the TIP/
STIP? To what extent must Advance Construction (AC) be shown in the
TIP/STIP?
Yes, innovative financing techniques (e.g., tolls, Grant
Anticipated Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE bonds), State Infrastructure
Banks (SIBs), and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA)) must be reflected in the TIP and/or STIP.
Additional information on innovative finance can be obtained via the
Internet at the following FHWA and FTA Web sites:
FHWA Innovative Finance Guidance http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativefinance/ifguidnc.htm
FTA Innovative Finance Guidance http://www.fta.dot.gov/1263_ENG_HTML.htm
FTA Flexible Funds Guidance http://www.fta.dot.gov/1254_ENG_HTML.htm
Advance Construction (AC) and partial conversion of advanced
construction (PCAC) are cash flow management tools that allow States
to begin projects with their own funds and only later convert these
projects to Federal assistance. AC allows a State to request and
receive approval to construct Federal-aid projects in advance of the
apportionment of authorized Federal-aid funds. Typically, States (at
their discretion) ``convert'' AC projects to Federal-aid at any time
sufficient Federal-aid funds and obligation authority are available
at one time. Under PCAC, a State (at its discretion) partially
``converts'' AC projects to Federal-aid funds in stages.
Title 23, U.S.C., section 115(c) specifies that an AC project
application may be approved ``* * * only if the project is included
in the STIP.'' Because AC does not constitute a commitment of
Federal funds to a project, the financial plan and/or funding
information for the TIP and STIP, respectively, need to demonstrate
sufficient non-Federal revenues to provide 100 percent funding for
the projects listed as ``AC'' in the TIP and/or STIP. The total
amount of allowable AC in the TIP and/or STIP is determined by: (a)
The State's current unobligated balance of apportionments; and (b)
the amount of Federal funds anticipated in the subsequent fiscal
years of an approved STIP.
In practice, an AC project/project phase essentially is included
in the TIP and/or STIP at two different points in time: (a) As State
or local funds prior to the initial authorization of the AC project
(including an assurance from the State that adequate State funds are
available to ``front'' the cost of the project/project phase); and
(b) prior to the authorization of the project/project phase to
``convert'' it from AC to a Federal-aid funding program (including a
demonstration from the State that this ``conversion'' maintains
fiscal constraint with other Federal-aid projects). Therefore, in
the year of an AC project's ``conversion,'' the project is
considered as both a State revenue source and a Federal-aid debit.
Similarly, Federal funding utilized to make payments on debt
instruments such as GARVEE bonds must be deducted from the amounts
of Federal funds available for new federally-funded projects. In
either case, the TIP and/or STIP should show the obligation of
Federal-aid category funds and the resultant increase in available
non-Federal funds.
5. To what extent can future Federal program funds be assumed
for developing TIPs and STIPs, particularly beyond the current
authorization or appropriations period?
When the TIP or STIP period extends beyond the current
authorization period for Federal program funds, ``available'' funds
may include an extrapolation based on historic authorizations of
Federal funds that are distributed by formula. For Federal funds
that are distributed on a discretionary basis (including FTA Section
5309, earmarks, and congressionally-designated funding), any funding
beyond that currently authorized and targeted to the area may be
considered as reasonably available, if past history supports such
funding levels.
Therefore, when determining future year authorizations/
apportionments, the growth rate as determined through the previous
authorizations can be used to approximate the future annual growth
rate of Federal authorizations. For example, since the TEA-21 was a
six-year bill, the growth rate could be determined over the entire
authorization period (fiscal year (FY) 1998-FY 2003), but excluding
the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority from the calculations.
Upon the enactment of new authorizing legislation, State DOTs
(in conjunction with MPOs and public transportation operators) must
utilize the actual authorization levels and individual discretionary
project funding amounts in the development of any updated TIP/STIP
or amendment of an existing TIP/STIP.
Metropolitan Transportation Plan
6. How should revenues from ``public-private partnerships'' be
treated?
``Public-private partnerships'' (PPP) are an emerging area
related to transportation finance that refer to contractual
agreements formed between a public agency and private sector entity
that allow for greater private sector participation in the delivery
of transportation projects. Traditionally, private sector
participation has been limited to separate planning, design, or
construction contracts as a fee-for-service arrangement, based on
the public agency's specifications.
[[Page 33559]]
Expanding the private sector role allows the public agencies to tap
private sector technical, management, and financial resources in new
ways to achieve certain public agency objectives (e.g., greater cost
and schedule certainty, supplementing in-house staff, innovative
technology applications, specialized expertise, or access to private
capital). The private partner can expand its business opportunities
in return for assuming these new or expanded responsibilities and
risks. Additional information on new PPP approaches to project
delivery can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/index.htm.
The PPP projects often are undertaken to supplement conventional
procurement practices by taking additional revenue sources and
mixing a variety of funding sources, thereby reducing demands on
constrained public budgets. Some of the revenue sources used to
support PPPs include: (a) Shareholder equity; (b) grant anticipation
bonds (GARVEEs and Grant Anticipation Notes); (c) general obligation
bonds; (d) SIB loans; (e) direct user charges (tolls and transit
fares) leveraged to obtain bonds; and (f) other public agency
dedicated revenue streams made available to a private franchisee or
concessionaire (e.g., leases, direct user charges from other tolled
facilities, and shadow tolls). Additional information on these
financing approaches and tools is available online from the American
Association of State and Transportation Officials at http://www.InnovativeFinance.org.
Within the financial plan that supports the metropolitan
transportation plan, a prospective PPP should be addressed on a
case-by-case basis, reflected as a source that is ``reasonably
expected to be available.''
7. How should future costs be estimated and documented?
Financial forecasts (for revenues and costs) to support the
metropolitan transportation plan (as well as the TIP and STIP) must
utilize an inflation rate to reflect ``year of expenditure dollars''
to account for the time-based value of money. The inflation rate(s)
should be based on sound, reasonable financial principles and
information, developed cooperatively by the MPO, State DOT, and
public transportation operator(s). To ensure consistency, similar
financial forecasting approaches should be utilized for the
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP in a given MPO.
Cost forecasts can be established in a number of ways. For
example, O&M can be based on historic data applied on a per-lane
mile and functional classification basis or an annual lump sum
basis. Capital costs can be based on historic costs for: (a) An
interchange; (b) new construction on new rights-of-way; (c)
structure (number, type, and deck square footage (area) for various
structure types); (d) transit vehicles for rolling stock
procurement; or (e) widening and/or reconstruction, based on the
extent of the project. In addition, capital cost estimates can be
based on project-specific estimates contained in planning,
environmental, or engineering studies, and updated as new
information is prepared as part of project development.
Transit operating costs can be estimated by general mode type on
a revenue-mile or passenger-mile basis, in accordance with the
following principles: (a) Reflect historic operations; (b)
anticipate future operations; (c) address all functional
responsibilities of the transit property; (d) focus on major cost
components; (e) apply consistent level of service data: (f) apply
peer transit property experience; (g) apply readily available
information; (h) provide fully-allocated costs for use in cost-
effectiveness analysis; (i) structure for sensitivity analyses; and
(j) document model theory and application [for additional
information, see ``Chapter 2: Principles of Operating and
Maintenance Cost Modeling'' in Estimation of Operating and
Maintenance Costs for Transit Systems, available on the FTA Web site
at http://www.fta.dot.gov/transit_data_info/reports_publications/publications/finance/estimation_operating/1210_2455_ENG_HTML.htm]. Transit system capital costs involve the estimation of
capital costs for a broad variety of project components and the
projection of future construction. Special consideration should be
given to factors such as design changes, component upgrades,
lengthened construction schedules, and the effects of general price
inflation.
Revenues and related cost estimates for O&M should be based on a
reasonable, documented process. Some accepted practices include:
Trend analysis (a functional analysis based on
expenditures over a given duration, in which costs or revenues are
increased by inflation, as well as a growth percentage based on
historic levels). This analysis could be linear or exponential. When
using this approach, however, it is important to be aware of new
facilities or improvements to existing facilities. Transit
operations and maintenance costs will vary with the average age of
the bus or rail car fleet.
Cost per unit of service (e.g., lane-mile costs,
centerline mile costs, traffic signal cost, transit peak vehicles by
vehicle type, revenue hours, and vehicle-miles by vehicle type).
Regardless of the methodology employed, the assumptions should
be adequately documented by the State DOT, the MPO, and the public
transportation operator, ideally reflected in the State DOT and the
MPO self-certification statements on the statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning processes.
The FHWA and the FTA recognize that estimating current and
reasonably available new revenues and required operations and
maintenance costs over a 20-year planning horizon is not an ``exact
science.'' To provide discipline and rigor, public agencies should
attempt to be as realistic as possible, as well as ensure that all
costs assumptions are publicly documented.
8. Does the financial plan need to include O&M costs for the
entire transportation system or simply the portion for which the
State is responsible? How should operations and maintenance be
reflected in the financial plan?
Titles 23, U.S.C., Section 134(i)(2)(D) and 49, U.S.C., Section
5303(i)(2)(D) require development of a metropolitan transportation
plan that includes capital investment and other strategies to
preserve the existing and projected future infrastructure needs. It
also requires operational and management strategies [23 U.S.C.
134(i)(2)(E) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(E)] to improve the performance
of existing transportation facilities. The metropolitan
transportation plan also must contain a financial plan that
demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented,
indicating resources from public and private sources that are
reasonable expected to be made available to carry out the
transportation plan [23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(2)(C)]. Therefore, the financial plan that supports the
metropolitan transportation plan must reflect the estimated costs of
constructing, operating, and maintaining the total (existing plus
planned) transportation system, including portions of the system
owned and operated by local governments.
Other Issues
9. What are some examples of ``reasonable'' and ``not
reasonable'' revenue forecasting assumptions?
Whether or not a funding source is reasonable may require a
judgment call. Illustrative (but not all-inclusive) examples of
``reasonable'' and ``not reasonable'' assumptions are highlighted in
the following table. Please note, however, that those described as
``reasonable'' do not necessarily meet the special test of
``available or committed'' funds.
Reasonable....................... A new toll with funds to be dedicated
to a particular project or program
may be reasonable, if supported by
the Governor and there are
indications of other support needed
to enact or institute the toll.
Reasonable....................... A new local gas or sales tax
requiring State legislation is
reasonable if there are indications
of sufficient support to enact the
new tax.
Not reasonable................... Funds from an upcoming ballot
initiative would not be reasonable
if polls indicate strong likelihood
of defeat or there is a history of
repeated defeat of similar ballot
initiatives in recent years.
Not reasonable................... A 25 percent increase in gas tax
revenues over five years is not
reasonable if the increase in the
previous five years was only 15
percent, unless there are special
circumstances to justify and support
a significantly higher increase than
the historic rate.
[[Page 33560]]
Not reasonable................... An assumption that the metropolitan
area will receive 30 percent of a
Federal discretionary program (e.g.,
FTA New Starts) is not reasonable if
the area has never received more
than 10 percent in the past, unless
there are special circumstances to
justify and support such an
assumption.
10. What is the connection (if any) between financial plans that
support Statewide and metropolitan transportation plans and programs
and financial/funding information for FHWA major projects and FTA
Capital Investment Grant projects?
In general, the financial plans that support statewide and
metropolitan transportation plans and programs do not need to
contain the specific cash flow schedule information that typically
is included for FHWA major projects (projects with an estimated
total cost of $500 million or more, pursuant to Section 1904 of the
SAFETEA-LU) or FTA Capital Investment Grant program projects.
However, because a large-scale transportation project likely will
have a substantial effect on a Statewide or metropolitan
transportation plan and program, this project-specific cash flow
schedule information can serve as a valuable resource on annual
levels and sources of revenues for developing the financial plans
that support Statewide and metropolitan transportation plans and
programs.
Additional information on financial planning for FHWA major
projects and FTA New Starts projects can be obtained via the
Internet at:
FHWA Financial Plan Guidance (May 23, 2000) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/mega/fplans.htm#fpgmemo
FHWA Major Project Program Cost Estimating Guidance
(June 4, 2004) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/mega/cefinal.htm
Guidance for Transit Financial Plans (June 2000) http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/gftfp.pdf
``Financial Planning for Transit'' in Procedures and
Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning
http://www.fta.dot.gov/grant_programs/transportation_planning/major_investment/technical_guidance/16352_ENG_HTML.htm
Estimation of Operating and Maintenance Costs for
Transit Systems (December 1992) http://www.fta.dot.gov/transit_data_info/reports_publications/publications/finance/1210_ENG_HTML.htm
PART 500--MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING SYSTEMS
2. Revise the authority citation for part 500 to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 303, and 315; 49 U.S.C. 5303-
5305; 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR 1.48 and 1.51.
3. Revise Sec. 500.109 to read as follows:
Sec. 500.109 CMS.
(a) For purposes of this part, congestion means the level at which
transportation system performance is unacceptable due to excessive
travel times and delays. Congestion management means the application of
strategies to improve system performance and reliability by reducing
the adverse impacts of congestion on the movement of people and goods
in a region. A congestion management system or process is a systematic
and regionally accepted approach for managing congestion that provides
accurate, up-to-date information on transportation system operations
and performance and assesses alternative strategies for congestion
management that meet State and local needs.
(b) The development of a congestion management system or process
should result in performance measures and strategies that can be
integrated into transportation plans and programs. The level of system
performance deemed acceptable by State and local officials may vary by
type of transportation facility, geographic location (metropolitan area
or subarea and/or non-metropolitan area), and/or time of day. In both
metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, consideration needs to be
given to strategies that manage demand, reduce single occupant vehicle
(SOV) travel, and improve transportation system management and
operations. Where the addition of general purpose lanes is determined
to be an appropriate congestion management strategy, explicit
consideration is to be given to the incorporation of appropriate
features into the SOV project to facilitate future demand management
strategies and operational improvements that will maintain the
functional integrity of those lanes.
TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION
4. Revise 49 CFR part 613 to read as follows:
PART 613--METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE PLANNING
Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions
Sec.
613.100 Definitions.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming
613.200 Statewide transportation planning and programming.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
450.300 Metropolitan transportation planning and programming.
Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions
Sec. 613.100 Definitions.
The regulations in 23 CFR 450, subpart A, shall be followed in
complying with the requirements of this subpart.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming
Sec. 613.200 Statewide transportation planning and programming.
The regulations in 23 CFR 450, subpart B, shall be followed in
complying with the requirements of this subpart.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
Sec. 613.300 Metropolitan transportation planning and programming.
The regulations in 23 CFR 450, subpart C, shall be followed in
complying with the requirements of this subpart.
Issued on: June 1, 2006.
J. Richard Capka,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Sandra K. Bushue,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 06-5145 Filed 6-2-06; 10:22 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P