Publication of Guidance on Certification of Metropolitan Planning Processes; Notification of FY 94 Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Transit Administration

[FHWA/FTA Docket No. 94-19]

Publication of Guidance on Certification of Metropolitan Planning

Processes; Notification of FY 94 Reviews

AGENCIES: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit

Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On April 28, 1994, the FHWA and the FTA Administrators jointly

issued guidance to their respective regional administrators on the

implementation of the Federal certification of the metropolitan

planning organizations (MPO) (transportation management area (TMA))

planning process. This guidance outlines the principles and interim

procedures that will be utilized in implementing the certification

process required under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act (ISTEA) and as further articulated in the US DOT regulations.

This notice also announces the schedule of FY 1994 reviews as known

at this time. As indicated in the attached certification guidance, the

FHWA and FTA are planning approximately twenty reviews for FY 1994,

approximately half of which will be pilots for the purpose of testing

and refining the review process. Interested parties are invited to

submit comments on the individual planning processes to be reviewed.

DATES: Comments on metropolitan planning processes under review must be

received within thirty (30) days of the scheduled review in order to be

considered during the certification review process. Where reviews have

already been held by the publication of this notice, individuals

interested in commenting on them should immediately contact Sheldon

Edner (see following paragraph for phone number and address and further

instructions below). Where dates are to be announced, a supplemental

notice announcing these dates will be issued when the specific dates

are confirmed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FHWA: Mr. Sheldon Edner, Planning

Operations Branch (HEP-21), (202) 366-4066 (metropolitan planning) or

Mr. Reid Alsop, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-31), (202) 366-

1371. For the FTA: Mr. Paul Verchinski, Resource Management Division

(TGM-21), (202) 366-6385 or Mr. Scott Biehl, FTA Office of the Chief

Counsel (TCC-40), (202) 366-4063. Both agencies are located at 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours for FHWA are

from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., and for the FTA are from 8:30 a.m.

to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections 1024, 1025, and 3012 of the ISTEA,

Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1955, 1962, and 2098, amended title

23, U.S.C., and the Federal Transit Act by revising sections 134 and

135 of title 23 and section 8 of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C.

app. 1607) which require a continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated

transportation planning process in metropolitan areas and States. The

FHWA and the FTA revised their previous metropolitan planning

regulations to implement these changes and published the final

regulations on October 28, 1993 (58 FR 58040).

As part of an ongoing commitment to public involvement in the

planning process, the FHWA and FTA are soliciting comments on this

guidance. As the agencies conduct certification reviews in FY 1994 we

will be looking at possible modifications based both on the experience

of having conducted the reviews and on the comments received on the

guidance and during the reviews. Specifically, the FHWA and FTA are

interested in comments regarding the process of review, appropriate

sources of information to be considered during the review, and the role

of key government officials and the public in providing input to the

review.

General

Additional Public Involvement in Certification Process

The FHWA and FTA are soliciting public comment on the planning

processes of the FY 1994 certification review sites identified below.

The agencies are particularly interested in input regarding the

strengths and weaknesses of the planning process in light of the

requirements identified in 23 CFR 450 Subpart C. Additionally, the

views of local officials and the public are welcomed regarding the use

of the planning process in transportation investment decisions.

Schedule of FY 1994 Certification Reviews

The following schedule is subject to revision. Changes will be

announced in the Federal Register. Parties interested in providing

comments on the metropolitan transportation planning processes in the

identified areas should submit them directly to the Docket 94-19

identified above, clearly identifying the metropolitan area that the

comments address. Except where the certification review was completed

prior to this Federal Register Notice, comments on metropolitan

planning processes under review must be received within 30 days of the

scheduled review in order to be considered during the certification

review process. Where the review was completed prior to publication of

this notice, interested parties wishing to make comments on a

particular certification, must contact Sheldon Edner within two weeks

of the date of this notice to assure that their comments will be

considered. Where dates for a planned certification review have not

been established, please contact Sheldon Edner for the dates.

The site visits are intended to provide an opportunity for the FHWA

and FTA review team to solicit information from the MPO, State DOT and

transit agency regarding the implementation of the planning process. In

addition, the team will be experimenting with alternative mechanisms

for soliciting public and local official input. The relevant MPO is

being asked to provide public notice, through its regular public notice

processes, of the review and the opportunity to provide public input to

the review team. Public officials should contact the MPO to identify

processes set up to solicit local government input.

The results of the certification reviews will be made public

through the regular MPO public information process at a time to be set

by the MPO policy board.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Region Pilot reviews Second review

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1/2\.................. Albany, NY: August 9- Both reviews in this

12, 1994.. region will be pilot

Worcester, MA: August 2- reviews because of

3, 1994. the geographic

difference in FTA and

FHWA regions.

3...................... Richmond, VA: September Allentown, PA: Dates

12-15, 1994. TBA but probably the

week of September 22-

23, 1994.

4...................... Nashville, TN: July 11- All reviews in this

13, 1994.. region will be pilots

Louisville, KY: because of the

September 6-8, 1994.. diversity of MPOs and

Orlando, FL: August 22- the large number of

24, 1994. TMAs in the region.

5...................... Indianapolis, IN: None selected at this

August 29- September time.

2, 1994.

6...................... Albuquerque, NM: August San Antonio, TX:

10-12, 1994. August 29-30, 1994.

7...................... Omaha, NE: July 18-20, Wichita, KS: TBA.

1994.

8...................... Provo, UT: August 9-12, Denver, CO: TBA.

1994.

9...................... San Diego, CA: August 1- Santa Barbara, CA:

4, 1994. September 13-15,

1994.

10..................... Spokane, WA: July 25- Portland, OR: TBA.

27, 1994.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Text of Certification Transmittal Memorandum and Guidance

The text of the transmittal memorandum and guidance follow.

ACTION: Federal Certification of the MPO (TMA) Planning Process

To: FTA Regional Administrators; FHWA Regional Administrators

From: Federal Transit Administrator; Federal Highway Administrator

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(ISTEA) has significantly enhanced the stewardship role of the FTA and

FHWA in the implementation of the changes it mandates in the

transportation planning process. Inherent within the approval of

Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP), planning

findings, conformity determinations and certification of the

transportation planning process in Transportation Management Areas

(TMA) is the fundamental leadership responsibility of FTA and FHWA in

ensuring that the transportation planning process addresses the policy

goals of the ISTEA. This memorandum articulates our general agency

expectations with regard to this planning stewardship and the specific

function that certification plays within this broader framework. While

certification of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) TMA

planning processes falls within the purview of the metropolitan

planning regulations, the basic principles apply to both the statewide

and metropolitan planning requirements.

We view certification of the planning process within TMAs as one of

a number of the critical mechanisms for ensuring the satisfactory

implementation of the planning requirements identified in 23 U.S.C. l34

and 49 U.S.C. 1602. It is perhaps most critical in the sense that it

will be a very visible action and formal indication that we have

exercised our legal responsibility in meeting this stewardship

function. However, the individual planning findings, necessary

conformity determinations and STIP approvals provide critical input to

this triennial action. We expect our regions to establish procedures

for implementing this joint responsibility. While the substance of

these decisions must remain consistent across regions, the variation in

workload posed by the distribution of TMAs will dictate procedural

accommodations by region.

The attached statement of principles and guidance provides a

framework for addressing the implementation of the certification

requirement. We expect the responsibility for issuing certification

determinations to rest jointly with our field offices, working in

partnership with Headquarters. The effective implementation of the

certification process will require a significant allocation of

resources which you should address in the development of regional

staffing and travel budgets.

Especially in this initial effort and in recognition of the phase-

in provisions of the metropolitan planning regulations (Section

45.336), we expect the emphasis to rest on ensuring a good faith effort

to implement plan updates and the priorities indicated in the

attachment. We also expect that the message conveyed to MPOs, state

DOTs and transit operators collectively will be that they are mutually

responsible for the continuing enhancement and improvement of the

planning process to meet the objectives of the ISTEA planning

requirements.

We expect the primary responsibility for implementing our

stewardship role to rest with FTA and FHWA field staff. However, this

is manifested not only in the certification process, but also in STIP

approvals, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and STIP planning

findings, conformity findings, and unified planning work program

approvals. In recognition of our national stewardship role and mandate

from the ISTEA, we plan to conduct Enhanced Planning Reviews (EPR) in

selected metropolitan areas which will be integrated with the

certification processes for the respective metropolitan areas. These

EPRs will be done at the request of states, MPOs, transit operators or

FTA/FHWA field or Headquarters offices to pursue more complex planning

process questions and to assist MPOs in improving their procedures. As

a supplement to these EPRs, we plan to develop and implement an overall

assessment of the planning process and its implementation under the

ISTEA requirements over the next three fiscal years. The results of the

planning reviews will provide input to this analysis. The challenge and

the expectations are such that we believe that a very visible and

substantial assessment is necessary to demonstrate our joint commitment

and success in providing the leadership expected of both agencies. You

will be hearing more about this initiative as it is developed.

We will be discussing the attached certification procedures and

guidance with your offices at opportunities over the next several

weeks. In conjunction with FHWA's Advance Planning Seminar which is

scheduled for the week of April 10, we expect to have FHWA and FTA

field staff participating in this seminar assist us in refining the

attached certification procedures and guidance. Additionally, we will

meet with field staff during May to discuss the certification process

in more detail after additional guidance has been developed. As

indicated in the attached paper, once this meeting has been held and

the guidance refined, Headquarters staff will participate with field

staff in conducting a pilot certification review in each region.

Certification reviews should not be initiated by field staff pending

the issuance of the additional guidance and/or completion of the pilot

certification reviews. If you have questions on certification, please

contact Deborah Burns, Office of Planning, TGM-21, at (202) 366-1637 or

Sheldon Edner, Office of Environment and Planning, HEP-21, at (202)

366-4066.

Gordon J. Linton,

Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.

Rodney E. Slater,

Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

Guidance Certification of the Metropolitan Planning Process in TMAs

Principles/Process

Must be a joint action by FHWA and FTA.

Must be based on a serious examination of the planning

process that documents the adequacy of the planning process. However,

the workload involved in reviewing the planning process for

approximately 135 MPOs once every 3 years combined with other oversight

and administrative responsibilities demands a process that utilizes and

builds on the other oversight functions including TIP findings, Unified

Planning Work Program approvals and conformity findings.

The certification process must recognize the differences

among areas and not expect each area to respond to the requirements to

some predefined minimum level/standard. The goal should be to encourage

an improved planning process in each area rather than a process that

only minimally meets the requirements.

Process must recognize that certification is likely to

involve negotiated improvements and schedules rather than pass or fail

ratings. In this vein, the ISTEA sanction provisions are viewed as a

``last resort'' action to be used in situations where the parties

involved are unresponsive to needed corrections or there are very

serious inadequacies in the planning process. In almost all cases, it

is likely that the ``planning finding'' process discussed below would

probably have identified deficiencies and may have already affected the

advancement of projects.

While certification is the formal mechanism provided by

ISTEA for determining the adequacy of the planning process in TMAs, a

``once-every-three-years-look'' at the planning process is not

sufficient to ensure that the planning process, its products, and our

actions related to the planning process meet the requirements.

Fortunately, the regulations provide additional mechanisms for assuring

the adequacy of the planning process, i.e., the planning finding that

must be made on each TIP/TIP amendment in all metropolitan planning

areas prior to its inclusion in an approved STIP, the air quality

conformity determination process in nonattainment and maintenance

areas, and the review and approval of the planning work programs for

all metropolitan areas.

The planning finding provides a mechanism for identifying problems

and requiring immediate corrective action without going through the

more formal certification process. In addition, the planning finding

process can provide an early warning mechanism for initiating a

certification review prior to end of the normal 3 year certification

period as well as in highlighting parts of the planning process that

need to be examined in more depth as part of regularly scheduled

certification reviews (and conversely identifying those parts that are

clearly meeting the regulatory requirements and therefore require less

review in the certification process). Although pre-ISTEA planning

findings may have relied primarily on the State and MPO self-

certification statements, this is not expected to be the case under the

regulations. It is expected that FHWA/FTA as part of the planning

findings process will review the adequacy of public involvement,

financial constraint, relationship of projects in TIP to the

transportation plan, and satisfaction of the provisions relating to the

restriction on SOV projects in TMAs that are nonattainment for carbon

monoxide and/or ozone.

The conformity regulations require consultation with a number of

agencies (including FHWA and FTA) on key elements of the metropolitan

planning process, including models to be used, proposed plans and TIPs,

research and data collection related to the transportation planning

process. The concerns that may be raised through this consultation

process will provide another mechanism for identifying potential

shortcomings in the planning process. Additionally, as part of the

conformity determination in nonattainment areas requiring TCMs, FHWA

and FTA must specifically consider comments concerning the financial

feasibility of the plan and TIP made through the conformity

consultation process and the metropolitan planning public involvement

process.

Where review of the work programs indicates that essential

activities for complying with the regulations are not being adequately

undertaken and/or the proposed schedules for completing the activities

do not satisfy regulatory requirements, the need for revisions to the

work program can be addressed. Where there is not a positive response,

FHWA and FTA can pursue this through action on the UPWP or a

certification review could be initiated without waiting the normal

three years.

It is expected that FHWA and FTA field staff will involve

themselves in the planning process on at least a selective basis, e.g.,

participation in key MPO meetings, monitoring TIP revisions, etc. This

can be a valuable mechanism for not only surfacing potential problems

and deficiencies in the planning process, and in initiating corrective

action but also providing contact with local officials. This is an

enhancement of the traditional planning oversight role of FHWA and FTA

field offices.

Enhanced planning reviews (EPRs) similar to the ones that

FHWA and FTA have been doing in areas over a million can provide

valuable input to the certification reviews and other oversight

functions. For example, where FHWA and FTA identify an apparent

shortcoming in the technical process, a comprehensive review of this

portion of the process could be undertaken with Transportation Systems

Center (TSC) staff. They could also be used to do ``peer'' type reviews

on a selected or request basis. In what ever form, these EPRs will

require substantial additional resources.

Reviews conducted under the FHWA Office of Program Review

annual review program may also augment the certification reviews and

other oversight functions. For example, last year implementation of the

flexibility provisions and administration of joint FHWA/FTA projects

was the subject of one of the reviews.

Individual certification reviews should be tailored to

reflect the information available from other oversight activities.

While this may not be a significant factor for the certifications

performed in the remainder of FY-94, this will become a significant

factor as other oversight functions reflect the regulatory

requirements. This means that while all aspects of the process will be

addressed in the certification findings a significant amount of the

information needed to make a decision on certification will be obtained

from other oversight activities and day-to-day involvement in the

planning process. It is expected that the certification process will

include a discussion of the findings with the MPO policy body.

Certification reviews in the balance of 1994 (at least) will need

to be done with the recognition that MPOs, States, and transit

operators will have had little time to address new regulatory

requirements and even less time to consider any nonregulatory guidance

that may be issued to supplement the regulations. These reviews need to

focus on how well they have addressed the interim guidance and what

they are doing to begin to address the additional requirements in the

final regulations.

Guidance for DOT staff conducting certifications will have

to be developed. This may include manuals, certification forms,

checklists, etc.

FHWA and FTA field staff will be the primary staff

involved in certifying MPOs. An assessment will have to be made on

training that may be necessary to equip DOT staff to perform

certification reviews. One potential mechanism in lieu of any formal

training is for Headquarters to lead the initial certification review

in each Region.

As part of the process, the areas identified below represent focal

points in the first round of certification reviews. They have been the

subject of keen interest by several key constituencies, represent

priority issues to FHWA and FTA and have been the subject of numerous

questions by MPOs, States, and transit agencies. These areas should be

addressed in a general way, reflecting the phase-in of the planning

requirements.

Fifteen Factors--The planning regulations (58 FR 58040) require

that the 15 factors be explicitly considered and analyzed as

appropriate.

Public Involvement--The metropolitan transportation planning

process should include provisions that encourage and ensure early and

continuing involvement of citizens, affected public agencies,

representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers

of transportation, and other interested parties in the development of

plans and TIPs, and in all other stages of the planning process.

Major Transportation Investments--Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPO) and their planning partners must undertake detailed

and participatory corridor and subarea studies of any major corridor

investments contained in a regional plan. These studies will include

detailed analysis of the forecasted effectiveness of alternative

investments and strategies in terms of a broad array of criteria.

Congestion Management System--In TMAs, the planning process must

include the development of a Congestion Management System (CMS) that

provides for effective management of new and existing transportation

facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational

management strategies. In TMAs that are nonattainment for carbon

monoxide and/or ozone, Federal funds are not to be programmed for

highway projects that increase Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) carrying

capacity unless such projects result from a CMS, meaning, in essence,

that Transportation Demand Management (TDM), transit, operating

strategies, and other actions must be looked at as alternatives to new

highway construction. Even if such strategies cannot completely satisfy

the need for additional capacity, they must be implemented in

conjunction with the SOV capacity enhancements.

The planning process and Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990

conformity--In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the MPO must have

an adequate process to ensure conformity of plans and programs with

State or Federal implementation plans, in accordance with procedures

contained in the rules resulting from the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990.

Financially constrained plans and TIPS--The regulations require

that MPOs have in place a process that produces current metropolitan

plans and TIPs that are financially feasible. Plans must demonstrate

the consistency of proposals with known and reasonably expected sources

of revenue for transportation uses. The TIP must be financially

constrained and include a plan that demonstrates how it can be

implemented without detriment to operation and maintenance of the

existing transportation system, and only projects for which funds can

reasonably be expected to be available may be programmed. The

metropolitan TIP is incorporated into the financially constrained State

TIP which is jointly approved by FHWA and FTA. In nonattainment and

maintenance areas, funds for projects in the first two years of a TIP

must be available or committed.

Schedule of Activities

By April 1, 1994

Develop and issue draft guidance for field.

Schedule meeting on certification with field staff and

schedule pilot reviews in each Region.

By July 31, 1994

Complete one pilot review per region, evaluate results,

and make any necessary modifications to guidance.

By September 30, 1994

Each region should complete at least one additional

certification review.

Evaluate results and regional/State workload. If necessary

modify approach and consider options for handling workload. (There is

significant disparity in the certification workload by Region as well

as individual States.)

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48; 3012 Pub. L. 102-240,

Sections 1024, 1025; 105 Stat. 1914, 1955, 1962, and 2098.

Issued on: August 16, 1994

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administration.

Gordon J. Linton,

Federal Transit Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-20536 Filed 08-18-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P