Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning

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

metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes in the context of the FTA's responsibilities. Section 1308 of TEA-21, which requires the Secretary of Transportation to eliminate the major investment study as a separate requirement and, as appropriate, integrate the requirement into the transportation planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, was not changed by the SAFETEA-LU and remains in effect.

Prior Rulemaking.

On May 25, 2000, the FHWA and the FTA jointly published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the

Federal Register

(65 FR 33922) proposing amendments to the existing metropolitan and statewide transportation planning regulations 23 CFR part 450 and 49 CFR part 613. Concurrently, the FHWA and the FTA jointly proposed to redesignate and amend existing regulations to further emphasize using the NEPA process to facilitate effective and timely transportation planning decisionmaking (65 FR 33959, May 25, 2000). The metropolitan and statewide transportation planning and NEPA NPRMs were issued concurrently to further the goal of the FTA and the FHWA to better coordinate the planning processes with project development activities and decisions associated with the NEPA process. On July 7, 2000 (65 FR 41891), a supplemental notice was published to extend the comment period on both NPRMs until September 23, 2000.

More than 400 documents (representing slightly more than 300 discrete comments) were submitted to that docket, distributed relatively equally among three primary sources: State DOTs, MPOs, and various other transportation stakeholder groups.

During the comment period, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held hearings regarding the NPRMs on September 12 and 13, 2000, respectively, focused on the intent of TEA-21 and possible burdens on State DOTs and MPOs that would not, it was asserted, result in increased efficiency and effectiveness of the planning or project development processes.

In response to the number, extent, and nature of the concerns, as well as in anticipation of further imminent statutory guidance (although, as it turned out, the SAFETEA-LU would not be enacted until 2005), the FHWA and FTA issued a notice in the September 20, 2002,

Federal Register

(67 FR 59219) withdrawing the NPRM.

1

1

The FHWA and the FTA proceeded with a separate rulemaking effort to address the issue of State consultation with non-metropolitan local officials. A final rule on that issue was published January 23, 2003 (68 FR 3181).

In the years since the May 2000 NPRM, transportation planning has continued to evolve. For example, the 2000 census identified increased urbanization, requiring the designation of additional metropolitan areas and establishment of additional MPOs and new Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). The TEA-21 provided increased funds for transportation planning. Improved technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the proliferation of Internet use, and improved data collection and processing have allowed planners to analyze more data and provide new ways to share information. New partners, such as freight carriers and shippers, are engaged in the process. The nation increasingly competes in a global economy, with greater emphasis on the need to move freight efficiently, and a greater recognition for the need to maximize the use and efficiency of the existing transportation system. The planning regulations need to be updated to respond to these and other related changes, as well as to the new statutory mandates of the SAFETEA-LU.

Interim Guidance

After withdrawing the NPRM, the FHWA and the FTA developed and issued a number of guidance documents to provide direction to State DOTs, MPOs and public transportation operators in implementing the TEA-21 statutory provisions. These are summarized below:

On February 2, 2001, the FHWA and the FTA jointly issued “Implementing TEA-21 Planning Provisions”,

2

which provided information on how to proceed with the TEA-21 statutory planning requirements, noting that “Although new planning regulations have not been issued, the requirements in TEA-21 are in effect.” Under this guidance, the FHWA and the FTA field offices were to work with MPOs, State DOTs, and transit operators “to ensure a basic level of compliance with TEA-21 planning requirements, based on the statutory language.” The guidance focused on the following new TEA-21 requirements: (a) Annual listing of projects; (b) revenue estimates for transportation plans and TIPs; (c) State consultation with local officials in non-metropolitan areas; (d) consultation with transit users and freight shippers and service providers; (e) MIS integration; (f) Federal planning finding for STIP approvals; (g) consolidation of planning factors; and (h) public involvement during certification reviews. These requirements continue, some enhanced, in SAFETEA-LU.

2

This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the following URL:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tea21mem.htm.

Subsequently, on February 22, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA issued joint “Program Guidance on Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes.”

3

This guidance, developed for use by State DOTs, MPOs, and public transportation operators, summarized and further explained provisions in current law and regulation, and provided direction on how information, analysis, and products from metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes (pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306) could be incorporated into and relied upon in the NEPA process under existing Federal statutes and regulations. This guidance is included in this proposal as Appendix A to part 450. A companion legal analysis outlining authority under current law was also issued on February 22, 2005.

4

Appendix A reiterates the statutory provision that transportation plans and programs are exempt from NEPA review. Development of Appendix A involved outreach to key national transportation planning stakeholder groups (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), the American of Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) as well as Federal environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies.

3

This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the following URL:

http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/aa5aec9f63be385c852568cc0055ea16/9fd918150ac2449685256fb10050726c?OpenDocument.

4

This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the following URL:

http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/renepa/renepa.nsf/All+Documents/9FD918150AC2449685256FB10050726C/$FILE/Planning-NEPA%20guidance,%20legal,%20final,%202-22-05.doc or http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/renepa/renepa.nsf/All+Documents/9FD918150AC2449685256FB10050726C/$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

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,

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

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 § 450.100 would be largely retained.

Section 450.102 Applicability

Existing § 450.102 would be retained without change.

Section 450.104 Definitions

Existing § 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.

“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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 450.206 would be removed or relocated to other sections due to outdated or redundant information and the section would be re-titled. Proposed § 450.206(a) would revise the content in existing § 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.”

In § 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 § 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 § 450.210 would be redesignated as § 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 § 450.212 would be revised, re-titled, and redesignated as § 450.210. Overall, existing § 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 § 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 § 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.

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 § 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 § 450.214 would be re-titled. Consistent with existing § 450.214, proposed § 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 § 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.

Section 450.216 Development and Content of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

Existing § 450.216 would be re-titled. Except for some restructuring and reorganization, much of the content of existing § 450.216 would remain intact.

Substantive changes reflected in proposed § 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 § 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 § 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 § 450.220 would be re-titled and redesignated as § 450.218. Proposed paragraph (a) would revise existing § 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 § 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 § 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 § 450.222 would be re-titled and redesignated as § 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 § 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 § 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).

Section 450.302 Applicability

Existing § 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 § 450.316(a) would be relocated to § 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 § 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 § 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 § 450.314 would be slightly revised, re-titled, and redesignated as § 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 § 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 § 450.306 would be revised, re-titled, and redesignated as § 450.310. While much of the content of existing § 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 § 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 § 450.308 would be re-titled, redesignated as § 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 § 450.308(a) of

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 § 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 § 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 § 450.310 and § 450.312 would be combined, revised, re-titled, and redesignated as § 450.314.

The content of existing § 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 § 450.310(a) would be removed. “Corridor and subarea studies” are proposed to be addressed in § 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 § 450.310(c), except for minor wording changes for clarification.

Existing § 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 § 450.310(e) would be removed, since new proposed § 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 § 450.310 and § 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 § 450.312(i) has been retained, expanded, and relocated to proposed § 450.316(c) discussed below.

Section 450.316 Interested Parties, Participation, and Consultation

Existing § 450.316(b) would be revised, expanded, re-titled, and redesignated as § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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.

Section 450.318 Transportation Planning Studies and Project Development

Existing § 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 § 450.318 is structured around the guiding principles and legal opinion reflected in that document.

16

This guidance document is available via the Internet at the following URL:

http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/aa5aec9f63be385c852568cc0055ea16/9fd918150ac2449685256fb10050726c?OpenDocument.

Section 450.320 Congestion Management Process in Transportation Management Areas

Existing § 450.320 would be retained as § 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 § 450.316 would be revised, re-titled, and redesignated as § 450.322, largely to reflect statutory requirements from the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU.

Proposed paragraph (a) retains the language under existing § 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,”

“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 § 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

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 § 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 § 450.324 would be revised and retained as § 450.324. Except for some restructuring and reorganization, much of the content of existing § 450.324 would remain intact.

Substantive changes reflected in proposed § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 450.326 and § 450.328 would be combined, re-titled, and redesignated as § 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 § 450.330 would be redesignated as § 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, § 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 § 450.332 would be revised, re-titled, and redesignated as § 450.330. Existing § 450.332(a), (b), and (c) would be redesignated as § 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 § 450.332(d) and (e) would be redesignated in proposed § 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

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 § 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 § 450.334 would be revised, re-titled, and retained as § 450.334. Proposed paragraph (a) would revise existing § 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 § 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 § 450.336 would be revised and redesignated as § 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

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 § 450.320. The intent of moving the requirements from this section to § 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 § 500.109(a). The remaining portions of existing § 500.109 that pertain to congestion management in TMAs are proposed to be moved to § 450.320.

The phase-in period defined in existing § 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 planning process: General requirements

450.206 Scope of the statewide transportation planning process.

450.208 Statewide transportation planning process: Factors

450.208 Coordination of 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 improvement program (STIP)

450.218 Self-certifications, 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 implementation

450.224 Phase-in of new 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 organizations: Designation and redesignation

450.306 Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process.

450.308 Metropolitan planning organization: Metropolitan planning boundary

450.308 Funding for transportation planning and unified planning work programs.

450.310 Metropolitan planning organization: planning agreements

450.310 Metropolitan planning organization designation and redesignation.

450.312 Metropolitan transportation planning: Responsibilities, cooperation, and coordination

450.312 Metropolitan planning area boundaries.

450.314 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Unified planning work programs

450.314 Metropolitan planning agreements.

450.316 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Elements

450.316 Interested parties, participation and consultation.

450.318 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Major metropolitan transportation investments

450.318 Transportation planning studies and project development.

450.320 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Relation to management systems

450.320 Congestion management process in transportation management areas.

450.322 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Transportation plan

450.322 Development and content of the metropolitan transportation plan.

450.324 Transportation improvement program: General

450.324 Development and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP).

450.326 Transportation improvement program: modification

450.326 TIP revisions and relationship to the STIP.

450.328 Transportation improvement program: Relationship to statewide TIP

450.328 TIP action by the FHWA and the FTA.

450.330 Transportation improvement program: Action required by FHWA/FTA

450.330 Project selection from the TIP.

450.332 Project selection for implementation

450.332 Annual listing of obligated projects.

450.334 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Certification

450.334 Self-certifications and Federal certifications.

450.336 Phase-in of new requirements

450.336 Applicability of NEPA to metropolitan transportation plans and programs.

None

450.338 Phase-in of new requirements.

Section 500

500.109 CMS

500.109 CMS.

The following distribution table identifies details for each existing section and proposed section:

Old section

New section

Subpart A

Subpart A

450.100

450.100. [Revised].

450.102

450.102.

450.104

450.104.

Definitions

Definitions.

None

Administrative modification. [New].

None

Alternatives analysis. [New].

None

Amendment. [New].

None

Attainment area. [New].

None

Available funds. [New].

None

Committed funds. [New].

None

Conformity. [New].

None

Conformity lapse. [New].

None

Congestion management process. [New].

None

Consideration. [New].

Consultation

Consultation. [Revised].

Cooperation

Cooperation. [Revised].

None

Coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. [New].

Coordination

Coordination. [Revised].

None

Design concept. [New].

None

Design scope. [New].

None

Environmental mitigation activities. [New].

None

Federal land management agency. [New].

None

Federally funded non-emergency transportation services. [New].

None

Financially constrained or Fiscal constraint. [New].

None

Financial plan. [New].

None

Freight shippers. [New].

Governor

Governor.

None

Illustrative project. [New].

None

Indian Tribal government. [New].

None

Intelligent transportation system (ITS). [New].

None

Interim metropolitan transportation plan. [New].

None

Interim transportation improvement program (TIP). [New].

Maintenance area

Maintenance area. [Revised].

Major metropolitan transportation investment

Removed.

Management system

Management system. [Revised].

Metropolitan planning area

Metropolitan planning area. [Revised].

Metropolitan planning organization

Metropolitan planning organization.

(MPO)

(MPO). [Revised].

Metropolitan transportation plan

Metropolitan transportation plan.

None

National ambient air quality standards. [New].

Nonattainment area

Nonattainment area.

Non-metropolitan area

Non-metropolitan area.

Non-metropolitan local official

Non-metropolitan local official.

None

Obligated projects. [New].

None

Operational and management strategies. [New].

None

Project selection. [New].

None

Provider of freight transportation services. [New].

None

Regional ITS architecture. [New].

None

Regional transit security strategy.

Regionally significant project

Regionally significant project. [Revised].

None

Revision. [New].

State

State.

State implementation plan (SIP)

State implementation plan (SIP). [Revised].

Statewide transportation improvement Program (STIP)

Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).

Statewide transportation plan

Long-range statewide transportation plan. [Revised].

None

Strategic Highway Safety Plan. [New].

None

Transportation control measures (TCMs). [New].

Transportation improvement program (TIP)

Transportation improvement program (TIP). [Revised].

Transportation management area (TMA)

Transportation management area (TMA). [Revised].

None

Unified planning work program (UPWP). [New].

None

Update. [New].

None

Urbanized area. [New].

None

Users of public transportation. [New].

None

Visualization techniques. [New].

Subpart B

Subpart B

450.200

450.200. [Revised].

450.202

450.202. [Revised].

450.204

450.204. [Revised].

450.206(a)(1) through (a)(5)

Removed.

450.206(b)

450.208(a)(1). [Revised].

450.206(c)

450.208(a)(3).

450.208(a)(1)

450.208(d). [Revised].

450.208(a)(2) through (a)(23)

450.206(a)(1) through (a)(8). [Revised].

450.208(b)

450.206(b). [Revised].

None

450.206(c). [New].

450.210(a)(1) through (a)(13)

450.208(a)(1) through (a)(7). [Revised].

450.210(b)

Removed.

None

450.208(b). [New].

None

450.208(c). [New].

None

450.208(e). [New].

None

450.208(f). [New].

None

450.208(g). [New].

None

450.208(h). [New].

450.212(a) through (g)

450.210(a). [Revised].

450.212(h) through (i)

450.210(b)(1) through (b)(2). [Revised].

None

450.210(c). [New].

None

450.212. [New].

450.214(a) through (b)(3)

450.214(a). [Revised].

None

450.214(b). [New].

450.214(b)(4)

450.214(e). [Revised].

450.214(b)(5)

450.214(c). [Revised].

450.214(b)(6)

450.214(k). [Revised].

None

450.214(d). [Revised].

None

450.214(e). [New].

450.214(c)(1) through (c)(5)

450.214(g) and (h). [Revised].

450.214(d)

Removed.

None

450.214(i). [New].

None

450.214(j). [New].

None

450.214(m). [New].

None

450.214(n). [New].

450.214(e)

450.214(o).

None

450.214(p). [New].

450.214(f)

450.214(f). [Revised].

450.216(a) last sentence

450.216(g). [Revised].

450.216(a)(1) through (a)(2)

450.216(a) through (b). [Revised].

450.216(a)(3)

450.216(k).

None

450.216(l). [New].

450.216(a)(4)

450.216(b). [Revised].

None

450.216(d). [New].

None

450.216(e). [New].

450.216(a)(5)

450.216(m). [Revised].

450.216(a)(6)

450.216(g). [Revised].

450.216(a)(7)

450.216(h). [Revised].

450.216(a)(8)

450.216(i). [Revised].

450.216(a)(9)

Removed.

450.216(b)

450.216(j). [Revised].

None

450.216(f). [New].

None

450.216(n). [New].

None

450.216(m). [New].

450.216(c) through (d)

450.216(o).

450.216(e)

450.216(c). [Revised].

450.218

450.206(d). [Revised].

450.220(a) through (g)

450.218(a) through (d). [Revised].

450.222(a) through (d)

450.220(a) through (e). [Revised].

None

450.222. [New].

450.224(a) through (b)

450.224(a) through (c). [Revised].

Subpart C

Subpart C

450.300

450.300. [Revised].

450.302

450.302. [Revised].

450.304

450.304. [Revised].

450.306(a) through (d)

450.310(a) through (d). [Revised].

None

450.310(f). [New].

450.306(e)

450.310(g).

None

450.310(h). [New].

450.306(f)

450.310(i). [Revised].

450.306(g)

450.310(j). [Revised].

450.306(h)

450.310(e). [Revised].

450.306(i) through (j)

Removed.

450.306(k)

450.310(l) through (m). [Revised].

None

450.310(k). [New].

450.308(a) through (c)

450.312(a), (b), and (i). [Revised].

None

450.312(c). [New].

None

450.312(d). [New].

None

450.312(e). [New].

None

450.312(f). [New].

None

450.312(g). [New].

None

450.312(h). [New].

450.308(d)

450.312(j). [Revised].

450.310(a), (b), and (d)

450.314(a). [Revised].

None

450.314(a)(1). [New].

None

450.314(a)(2). [New].

450.310(c)

450.314(c).

450.310(e)

Removed.

450.310(f)

450.314(b). [Revised].

450.310(g)

450.314(d). [Revised].

450.310(h)

Removed.

None

450.314(f). [New].

450.312(a)

Removed.

450.312(b)

Removed.

450.312(c)

450.322(d). [Revised].

450.312(d)

Removed.

450.312(e)

450.314(e).

450.312(f)

450.306(i).

450.312(g)

Removed.

450.312(h)

Removed.

450.312(i)

450.316(c) through (d). [Revised].

None

450.316(e). [New].

None

450.308(a). [New].

450.314(a) through (d)

450.308(b) through (e). [Revised].

None

450.308(f). [New].

450.316(a)(1) through (a)(16)

450.306(a)(1) through (a)(8). [Revised].

None

450.306(b). [New].

None

450.306(c). [New].

None

450.306(d). [New].

None

450.306(e). [New].

None

450.306(f). [New].

None

450.306(g). [New].

None

450.306(h). [New].

None

450.316(a). [New].

450.316(b)(1)(i)

450.316(a)(3). [Revised].

450.316(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(vi)

450.316(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi). [Revised].

450.316(b)(1)(vii)

450.316(a)(2)(). [Revised].

450.316(b)(1)(viii) through (b)(1)(xi)

450.316(a)(1)(vii) through (a)(1)(x). [Revised].

450.316(b)(2)

Removed.

450.316(b)(3)

Removed.

450.316(b)(4)

Removed.

None

450.316(b). [New].

450.312(i)

450.316(c).

None

450.316(d). [New].

450.316(c)

450.306(j). [Revised].

450.316(d)

Removed.

450.318(a) through (f)

450.318(a) through (c). [Revised].

450.320(a) through (c)

450.320(a) through (f). [Revised].

450.322(a) and (e)

450.322(a) through (c). [Revised].

None

450.322(e). [New].

450.322(b)(1) through (b)(2)

450.322(f)(1) through (f)(2). [Revised].

450.322(b)(3)

450.322(f)(8). [Revised].

450.322(b)(4) through (b)(7)

450.322(f)(3) through (f)(6). [Revised].

450.322(b)(8)

Removed.

450.322(b)(9)

450.322(f)(7). [Revised].

450.322(b)(10)

Removed.

450.322(b)(11)

450.322(f)(8). [Revised].

None

450.322(g)(1) through (g)(2). [New].

None

450.322(h). [New].

450.322(c)

450.322(i). [Revised].

None

450.322(j). [New].

None

450.322(k). [New].

450.322(d)

450.322(l). [Revised].

450.324(a) through (n)

450.324(a) through (j). [Revised].

None

450.324(k). [New].

None

450.324(l). [New].

450.326

450.326(a). [Revised].

450.328(a) through (b)

450.326(b) through (c). [Revised].

450.330(a) through (b)

450.328(a) through (b). [Revised].

None

450.328(c) through (e). [New].

450.324(o)

450.328(f). [Revised].

450.332(a) through (e)

450.330(a) through (e). [Revised].

None

450.332(a) through (c). [New].

450.334(a) through (h)

450.334(a) through (b). [Revised].

None

450.336. [New].

450.336

450.338(a) through (d). [Revised].

500.109 (a) through (c)

500.109(a) through (b). [Revised].

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received on or before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA and FTA have determined preliminarily that this rulemaking would be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and is significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures because of substantial State, local government, congressional, and public interest. These interests involve receipt of Federal financial support for transportation investments, appropriate compliance with statutory requirements, and balancing of transportation mobility and environmental goals. The changes proposed herein would add new coordination and documentation requirements (

e.g.

, greater public outreach and consultation with State and local planning and resource agencies, annual listing of obligated projects, etc.), but would reduce the frequency of some existing regulatory reporting requirements (

e.g.

, metropolitan transportation plan, STIP/TIP, and certification reviews). In preparing this proposal, the FHWA and the FTA have sought to maintain existing flexibility of operation wherever possible for State DOTs, MPOs, and other affected organizations, and to utilize existing processes to accomplish any new tasks or activities.

The FHWA and the FTA have conducted a cost analysis identifying each of the proposed regulatory changes that would have a significant cost impact for MPOs or State DOTs, and have estimated those costs on an annual basis. This cost analysis is included as a separate document, entitled “Regulatory Cost Analysis of Proposed Rulemaking,” and is available for review in the docket. Based on the cost analysis, we estimate that the aggregate increase in costs over current expenditures attributable to this rulemaking for all 52 State DOTs and 384 MPOs would be approximately $19.8 million per year, or about $46,000 per agency, on average. Eighty (80) percent of these costs are directly reimbursable through Federal transportation funds allocated for metropolitan planning. [23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)] and for State planning and research [23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5313]. Furthermore, the SAFETEA-LU significantly increased the mandatory set-aside in Federal funds for metropolitan transportation planning, as well as Statewide Planning and Research funding. In addition, the State DOTs and MPOs have the flexibility to use most other Federal highway dollars for transportation planning if they so desire. Consequently, the increase in non-Federal cost burden attributable to this proposed rulemaking is estimated to be only $4 million per year in total, or about $9,100 per agency, on average. Therefore, we believe that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal.

The FHWA and the FTA welcome comments on the economic impacts of these proposed regulations. Comments, including those from the State DOTs and MPOs, regarding specific burdens, impacts, and costs would be most welcome and would aid us in more fully appreciating the impacts of this ongoing planning process requirement. Hence, we encourage comments on all facets of this proposal regarding its costs, burdens, and impacts.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA and the FTA have determined that States and metropolitan planning organizations are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Small governmental jurisdictions are limited to representations of populations of less than 50,000. Metropolitan planning organizations, by definition represent urbanized areas having a minimum population of 50,000. Therefore the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure of non-Federal funds by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120.7 million in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).

Additionally, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes

made in the program by the Federal government. The Federal-aid highway program and Federal Transit Act permit this type of flexibility to the States.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA and the FTA have determined that this proposed action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. The FHWA and the FTA have also determined that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Comment is solicited specifically on the Federalism implications of this proposal.

By letter dated November 29, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA solicited comments from the National Governors' Association (NGA) as representatives for the elected State officials on the Federalism implications of this proposed rule.

19

An identical letter was sent on the same date to several other organizations representing elected officials and Indian Tribal governments. These organizations were: the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), the American Public Works Association (APWA), the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), the National Association of Counties (NACO), the Conference of Mayors (COM), the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).

19

A copy of this letter is included in the docket.

In response to this letter, AMPO and NARC requested a meeting to discuss their Federalism concerns. On December 21, 2005, we met with representatives from AMPO and NARC. A summary of this meeting is available in the docket. Briefly, both AMPO and NARC expressed concern with the potential burdens that new requirements might have on MPOs, especially the smaller MPOs. In particular, AMPO and NARC were concerned with our implementation of the SAFETEA-LU provisions relating to public participation, congestion management process, and implementation of planning update cycles. During the meeting, the FHWA and the FTA indicated that we would consider the issues discussed at the meeting. In response to the concerns raised, we propose flexible public participation requirements in Section 450.316, recognizing the wide variations among MPO capabilities and needs. Regarding the implementation of planning update cycles, the FHWA and the FTA note that 23 U.S.C. 134(b) and 135(b) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(b) and 5304(b) state that “beginning July 1, 2007, State or metropolitan planning organization plan or program updates shall reflect changes made by this section.” The FHWA and the FTA do not have the legal authority to allow flexibility with regard to this date.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction (or 20.217); 20.500, Federal Transit Capital Improvement Grants; 20.505, Federal Transit Technical Studies Grants; 20.507, Federal Transit Capital and Operating Assistance Formula Grants. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation in Federal programs and activities apply to these programs and were carried out as part of the outreach on the Federalism implications of this rulemaking. The FHWA and the FTA solicit comments on this issue.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA and the FTA have determined that this proposal contains collection of information requirements for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. However, the FHWA and the FTA believe that any increases in burden hours per submission are more than offset by decreases in the frequency of collection for these information requirements.

The reporting requirements for metropolitan planning unified planning work programs (UPWPs), transportation plans, and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) are currently approved under OMB control number 2132-0529 (expiration date: 06/30/2007). The information reporting requirements for State planning work programs have been approved by the OMB under control number 2125-0039. The FTA conducted the analysis supporting this approval on behalf of both the FTA and the FHWA, since the regulations are jointly issued by both agencies. The reporting requirements for statewide transportation plans and programs are also approved under this same OMB control number. The information collection requirements addressed under the current OMB approval number (2132-0529) impose a total burden of 314,900 hours on the planning agencies that must comply with the requirements in the existing regulation. The FHWA and the FTA conducted an analysis of the change in burden hours attributed to the proposed rulemaking, based on estimates used in the submission for OMB approval. This analysis is included as a separate document entitled “Estimated Change in Reporting Burden Hours Attributable to Proposed Rulemaking”, and is available for review in the docket. The analysis results are summarized below.

The creation and submission of required reports and documents have been limited to those specifically required by 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and in 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 or essential to the performance of our findings, certifications and/or approvals. Under the proposed rulemaking, there would be no significant change in the submission requirements for UPWPs or State planning work programs; therefore there is no change in the annual reporting burden for this element. The proposed rulemaking would require that additional sections be added to the metropolitan and statewide transportation plans, which we estimate would increase the required level of effort by 20 percent over current plan development. However, the proposed rulemaking would also reduce the required frequency of plan submission from 3 to 4 years for MPOs located in nonattainment or maintenance areas. One half of all MPOs are located in nonattainment or maintenance areas and would realize a reduction in their annual reporting burden. Based on the burden hours used in the FTA analysis submitted for OMB approval, the decrease in burden hours for MPOs located in nonattainment and maintenance areas more than offsets the increase in burden hours associated with the new sections required in the plans.

The proposed rulemaking requires that State and metropolitan transportation improvement program (STIP and TIP) documents include 4 years of projects; an increase from 3 years of projects required under current regulations. We estimate that the inclusion of an additional year of projects would increase the reporting burden associated with TIP development by 10 percent over current levels. However, the proposed rulemaking would also reduce the

required frequency of TIP submission from 2 years to 4 years for all States and MPOs. Based on the burden hours used in the FTA analysis submitted for OMB approval, the decrease in burden hours associated with the reduced frequency of submission more than offsets the increase in burden hours associated with including an additional year of projects in the TIP.

Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including, but not limited to: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the FHWA and the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collection of information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the information collected.

National Environmental Policy Act

The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), and have determined that this proposed action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believe that the proposed action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments; and would not preempt Tribal laws. The planning regulations contain requirements for States to consult with Indian Tribal governments in the planning process. Tribes are required under 25 CFR 170 to develop long range plans and develop an Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) TIP for programming IRR projects. However, the requirements in 25 CFR part 170 would not be changed by this rulemaking. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order because although it is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA and the FTA also believe that the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d

et seq.

) apply to this proposed rule. The FHWA and the FTA have preliminarily determined that this proposed rule does not raise any environmental justice issues. The agencies request comment on this assessment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

23 CFR Parts 450 and 500

Grant programs—transportation, Highway and roads, Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 613

Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA and the FTA propose to revise title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 450 and 500 and title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, part 613 as set forth below:

Title 23—Highways

1. Revise part 450 to read as follows:

PART 450—PLANNING ASSISTANCE AND STANDARDS

Subpart A—Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions

Sec.

450.100

Purpose.

450.102

Applicability.

450.104

Definitions.

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming

450.200

Purpose.

450.202

Applicability.

450.204

Definitions.

450.206

Scope of the statewide transportation planning process.

450.208

Coordination of planning process activities.

450.210

Interested parties, public involvement, and consultation.

450.212

Transportation planning studies and project development.

450.214

Development and content of the long-range statewide transportation plan.

450.216

Development and content of the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).

450.218

Self-certifications, Federal findings, and Federal approvals.

450.220

Project selection from the STIP.

450.222

Applicability of NEPA to statewide transportation plans and programs.

450.224

Phase-In of new requirements.

Subpart C—Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming

450.300

Purpose.

450.302

Applicability.

450.304

Definitions.

450.306

Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process.

450.308

Funding for transportation planning and unified planning work programs.

450.310

Metropolitan planning organization designation and redesignation.

450.312

Metropolitan planning area boundaries.

450.314

Metropolitan planning agreements.

450.316

Interested parties, participation, and consultation.

450.318

Transportation planning studies and project development.

450.320

Congestion management process in transportation management areas.

450.322

Development and content of the metropolitan transportation plan.

450.324

Development and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP).

450.326

TIP revisions and relationship to the STIP.

450.328

TIP action by the FHWA and the FTA.

450.330

Project selection from the TIP.

450.332

Annual listing of obligated projects.

450.334

Self-certifications and Federal certifications.

450.336

Applicability of NEPA to metropolitan transportation plans and programs.

450.338

Phase-in of new requirements.

Appendix A to part 450—Linking the transportation planning and NEPA processes.

Appendix B to part 450—Fiscal constraint of transportation plans and programs.

Authority:

23 U.S.C. 134-135; 42 U.S.C. 7410

et seq.

; 49 U.S.C. 5303-5304; 49 CFR 1.48 and 1.51.

Subpart A—Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions

§ 450.100

Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to provide definitions for terms used in this part.

§ 450.102

Applicability.

The definitions in this subpart are applicable to this part, except as otherwise provided.

§ 450.104

Definitions.

Unless otherwise specified, the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302 are applicable to this part.

Administrative modification

means a revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that is not significant enough to require public review and comment, redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and maintenance areas). Examples of administrative modifications include minor changes in the cost or initiation date of included projects.

Alternatives analysis (AA)

means a study required for eligibility of funding under the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) Capital Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5309), which includes an assessment of a range of alternatives designed to address a transportation problem in a corridor or subarea, resulting in sufficient information to support selection by State and local officials of a locally preferred alternative for adoption into a metropolitan transportation plan, and for the Secretary to make decisions to advance the locally preferred alternative through the project development process, as set forth in 49 CFR part 611 (Major Capital Investment Projects).

Amendment

means a revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that is significant enough to require public review and comment, redemonstration of fiscal constraint, and/or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and maintenance areas). Examples of amendments include the addition or deletion of a regionally significant project, or a substantial change in the cost, design concept, or design scope of an included project.

Attainment area

means any geographic area considered to have air quality that meets or exceeds the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) health standards in the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401

et seq.

). An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment area for others. A “maintenance area” (see definition below) is not considered an attainment area for transportation planning purposes.

Available funds

means, for projects or project phases in the first two years of the metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and/or Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, funds derived from an existing source dedicated to or historically used for transportation purposes. For Federal funds, authorized and/or appropriated funds and the extrapolation of formula and discretionary funds at historic rates of increase are considered “available.” A similar approach may be used for State and local funds that are dedicated to or historically used for transportation purposes.

Committed funds

means, for projects or project phases in the first two years of a TIP and/or STIP in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, funds that have been dedicated or obligated for transportation purposes. For State funds that are not dedicated to transportation purposes, only those funds over which the Governor has control may be considered “committed.” Approval of a TIP by the Governor is considered a commitment of those funds over which the Governor has control. For local or private sources of funds not dedicated to or historically used for transportation purposes (including donations of property), a commitment in writing (

e.g.

, letter of intent) by the responsible official or body having control of the funds may be considered a commitment.

Conformity

means the process to assess the compliance of a transportation plan, program, or project with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. The conformity process is defined in the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401

et seq.

) and governed by the EPA under its transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93).

Conformity lapse

means, pursuant to section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), as amended, that the conformity determination for a metropolitan transportation plan or TIP has expired and thus there is no currently conforming metropolitan transportation plan or TIP.

Congestion management process

means a systematic approach required in transportation management areas (TMAs) that provides for effective management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed and implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under title 23, U.S.C., and title 49, U.S.C., through the use of operational management strategies.

Consideration

means that one or more parties takes into account the opinions, action, and relevant information from other parties in making a decision or determining a course of action.

Consultation

means that one or more parties confer with other identified parties in accordance with an established process and, prior to taking action(s), considers the views of the other parties and periodically informs them about action(s) taken.

Cooperation

means that the parties involved in carrying out the transportation planning and programming processes work together to achieve a common goal or objective.

Coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan

means a unified, comprehensive strategy for transit service delivery developed by public, private, and non-profit providers of transportation and human services, with participation by the public, including people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes, in order to minimize duplication and maximize collective coverage. The plan is a requirement under the FTA formula programs for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities (49 U.S.C. 5310), Job Access and Reverse Commute (49 U.S.C. 5316), and New Freedom (49 U.S.C. 5317), but may include other Federal, State, or local programs.

Coordination

means the cooperative development of plans, programs, and schedules among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general consistency, as appropriate.

Design concept

means the type of facility identified for a transportation improvement project (

e.g.,

freeway, expressway, arterial highway, grade-separated highway, toll road, reserved right-of-way rail transit, mixed-traffic rail transit, or exclusive busway).

Design scope

means the aspects that will affect the proposed facility's impact on the region, usually as they relate to vehicle or person carrying capacity and control (

e.g.,

number of lanes or tracks to be constructed or added, length of project, signalization, safety features, access control including approximate number and location of interchanges, or preferential treatment for high-occupancy vehicles).

Environmental mitigation activities

means strategies, policies, programs, actions, and activities that, over time, will serve to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for (by replacing or providing substitute resources) the impacts to or disruption of elements of the human and natural environment associated with the implementation of a long-range statewide transportation plan or metropolitan transportation plan. The human and natural environment includes, for example, neighborhoods and communities, homes and businesses, cultural resources, parks and recreation areas, wetlands and water sources, forested and other natural areas, agricultural areas, endangered and threatened species, and the ambient air. The environmental mitigation strategies and activities are intended to be regional in scope, even though the mitigation may address potential project-level impacts. The environmental mitigation strategies and activities must be developed in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies during the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes and be reflected in all adopted transportation plans.

Federal land management agency

means units of Federal Government currently responsible for the administration of public lands (

e.g.,

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service).

Federally funded non-emergency transportation services

means transportation services provided to the general public, including those with special transport needs, by public transit, private non-profit service providers, and private third-party contractors to public agencies.

Financially constrained or Fiscal Constraint

means that each program year in the TIP and the STIP includes sufficient financial information for demonstrating that projects can be implemented using current and/or reasonably available revenues, by source, while the entire transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained. Additionally, projects in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas can be included in the first two years of the TIP and STIP only if funds are “available or committed.”

Financial plans

means documentation required to be included with metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, and STIPs that demonstrates the consistency between reasonable available and projected sources of Federal, State, local, and private revenues and the costs of implementing proposed transportation system improvements, as well as operating and maintaining the entire transportation system.

Freight shippers

means any business that routinely transports its products from one location to another by providers of freight transportation services or by its own vehicle fleet.

Governor

means the Governor of any of the 50 States or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Mayor of the District of Columbia.

Illustrative project

means a transportation project that

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.