[Federal Register: June 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 111)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33509-33560]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09jn06-13]
[[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
[[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/
aa5aec9f63be 385c852568cc 0055ea16/ 9fd918150ac2449
685256fb10050726c? 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 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/
aa5aec9f63be385c85256 8cc0055ea16/ 9fd918150ac244
9685256fb10050726c?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
organiza