# Presentation: 841391

## Final Rule23 CFR Parts 450 and 50049 CFR Part 613

- Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the revised Federal Regulations governing the development of metropolitan transportation plans and programs, statewide transportation plans and programs and regulations for Congestion Management Systems. These revisions result from the 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 now makes the regulations consistent with current statutory requirements.  The last time these sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) were updated was October 1993.
The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2007, and became effective on March 16, 2007.
The presentation is organized in four parts:
Guiding Principles (Introduction/Discussion of the NPRM):  Slides 1-10
And Final Rule Key Requirements
Scope of the Transportation Planning Process:  Slides 11-21
Consultation/Participation Requirements:  Slides 22-27
Products from the Transportation Planning Process:  Slides 28-36

## Guiding Principles 

- Minimize the areas and levels of controversy;
- Use statutory requirements and language to the extent possible; and
- Use “plain language.”

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The FHWA and the FTA used several “Guiding Principles” throughout the development of this regulation.  These “Guiding Principles” framed the process for development of the regulation and helped to determine what is included.  
Minimize the areas and levels of controversy
Use statutory requirements and language to the extent possible – Close adherence to the legislative mandate means that additional regulatory language was generally not included if it expanded significantly on legislative language.  In some cases, 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.  
Use “plain language.”
In addition to using plain language in the text, we have also clarified and revised the regulation’s section headings.  The organization of each section and general structure reflects, mostly unchanged, the previous regulation, to make it easy for those familiar with the previous regulation to use the new one.

## Overview of Rulemaking Schedule

- SAFETEA-LU Passed August 10, 2005
- NPRM Published June 9, 2006
- Extensive Public Outreach with 90-Day Open Docket
- Comment Period Closed September 7, 2006
- Final Rule Published:  February 14, 2007
- Final Rule Effective:  March 16, 2007
- SAFETEA-LU Compliance Date:  July 1, 2007

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Since the passage of SAFETEA-LU on August 10, 2005, FHWA and FTA have worked to develop and publish a Final Rule as expeditiously as possible.  This slide identifies several significant dates in the rulemaking and implementation process. 
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2006.  Over the 90-day open docket period, a significant effort was made to alert the public and stakeholders to the proposed regulation and request comment. Six regional outreach workshops were held across the U.S., complementing the numerous informational briefings provided to national stakeholder groups.
Once the comment period closed on September 7, 2006, FHWA/FTA reviewed and considered all the comments to the docket and developed the Final Rule.  The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2007, and became effective on March 16, 2007.  FHWA/FTA made every effort to publish a Final Rule as far in advance of the July 1, 2007, compliance date in SAFETEA-LU as possible.

## Major Comments on NPRM

- 150 sets of correspondence containing more than 1,600 individual comments.
- State DOTs, MPOs/COGs, and advocacy organizations accounted for approximately 85 percent of comments
- 4 Major issues:
- Including Fiscal Constraint Guidance in Appendix
- Including guidance for Linking Transportation Planning and Project Development/NEPA Processes in Appendix
- Schedule for meeting the July 1, 2007 SAFETEA-LU compliance date
- Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Our extensive outreach was effective in getting stakeholders to read and comment on the proposed rule.  During and after the 90-day comment period following the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FHWA and FTA received more than 150 sets of correspondence from State DOTs, MPOs/COGs, national and regional advocacy organizations as well as individuals and business groups. These correspondence represent more than 1,600 individual comments on various parts of the proposed rule.
We reviewed and evaluated each of these comments in developing the Final Rule and our reasoning is explained in the Preamble.  The majority of the comments fell into the following categories, which we will discuss in further detail:
Fiscal constraint guidance in Appendix
Linking the transportation planning and project development/NEPA processes guidance in Appendix
The schedule for meeting the July 1, 2007 SAFETEA-LU compliance date
Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans – who prepares, how, and the relationship of the Coordinated Plan with the applicable metropolitan and statewide transportation plans.

## Key Changes from NPRM

**Issue 1: Fiscal Constraint**
- Appendix B removed
- Elements of former Appendix B brought into Rule:
**“****Year of expenditure dollars” - effective December 11, 2007 **[See 23 CFR 450.216(l), 450.322(f)(10)(iv) and 450.324 (h)]
**Financial plan shall contain systems-level estimates of costs and revenue sources to adequately operate and maintain federally funded highway and transit facilities **[See 23 CFR 450.216(m), 450.322(f)(10)(i), and 450.324(h-i)]
**Optional use of “cost ranges/cost bands” beyond first 10 years of the metropolitan transportation plan **[See 23 CFR 450.322(f)(10)(v)]

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Based on the comments we received and because proposed Appendix B contained a combination of guidance, amplifying information, and additional criteria, which are not appropriate for an Appendix to a rule, it was removed. 
However, three key features of Appendix B merited inclusion in the rule.  These key features are:
“Year of expenditure dollars" in developing cost and revenue estimates. This requirement goes into effect December 11, 2007 (consistent with FHWA’s Major Project Guidance) and reflects time-based value of money, which is crucial for large-scale projects with construction dates stretching across multiple years.
The financial plans supporting the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP and the financial information supporting the STIP shall be based on systems-level (as opposed to facility and service-specific) estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways and public transportation. 
Beyond the first 10 years (i.e. “outer years”) of the metropolitan transportation plan, the financial plan may reflect aggregate cost ranges/cost bands, as long as the future funding source(s) is reasonably expected to be available to support the projected cost ranges/cost bands.  (Note: The metropolitan transportation also may include “illustrative projects.”)
These provisions supersede the June 30, 2005 Interim FHWA/FTA Guidance on Fiscal Constraint for STIPs, TIPs, and Metro Plans.

## Key Changes from NPRM (Continued)

**Issue 2: Linking the Transportation Planning and Project Development/NEPA Processes**
- 23 CFR 450.212 and 23 CFR 450.318 encourage linkages between the transportation planning and project development/NEPA processes
- Clarifying that Appendix A is not regulatory and binding
- Emphasis was added to the preamble and the Rule text that the proposed Final Rule fulfills the intent of TEA-21 section 1308 [See 23 CFR 450.212(a) and 450.318(a)]* *
- All existing rule references to the MIS as a stand-alone requirement have been removed

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The purpose of an Appendix to a regulation is to improve the quality or use of a rule, without imposing new requirements or restrictions.  Appendices provide supplemental, background or explanatory information that illustrates or amplifies a rule.  
Because Appendix A provides amplifying information about how State DOTs, MPOs and public transportation operators can choose to conduct transportation planning-level choices and analyses so they may be adopted or incorporated into the process required by NEPA, but does not impose new requirements, it is included in the rule.  The information contained in Appendix A supersedes the February 22, 2005, FHWA/FTA program guidance.
Section 1308 of the TEA-21 required the Secretary to eliminate the MIS set forth in the former § 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 analysis 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. 
Sections 450.212 and 450.318 implement this requirement of Section 1308 of the TEA-21 and eliminate the MIS requirement as a stand-alone requirement.  All previous rule references to the MIS as a stand-alone requirement have been removed. 
More detail is provided on Slide 16.

## Key Changes from NPRM (Continued)

**Issue 3: Schedule for meeting July 1, 2007 SAFETEA-LU compliance date**
- Adopted the approach outlined in May 2, 2006 clarifying guidance
- FHWA/FTA actions beginning July 1, 2007, require SAFETEA-LU compliance of the documents that are being approved
- States/MPOs advised to keep FHWA/FTA apprised of progress in achieving compliance

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The Final Rule uses the approach outlined in the May 2, 2006 FHWA/FTA clarifying guidance, which has now been incorporated into and superseded by the Final Rule.  More details on this topic are provided on slide 31.

## Key Changes from NPRM (Continued)

**Issue 4****: Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans**
- Descriptive detail provided in FTA Circulars for 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs
- Local officials determine who prepares the Coordinated Plan
- Consistency required between preparation of the Coordinated Plan and applicable metropolitan or Statewide transportation planning processes* **[23 CFR 450.306(g)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Commenters proposed various organizational approaches to preparing the Coordinated Plan. SAFETEA-LU requires that these decisions be made by local officials.  More detail is provided in the FTA Circular published on March 29, 2007, for the three programs. 
The Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan is NOT an MPO requirement, however all Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 projects/programs must come from a Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. 
More detail is provided on Slide 34.

## Rule Structure

_**Title 23, Part 450**_
- Subpart A – Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions
- Subpart B – Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming
- Subpart C – Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
- Appendix A – Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The Rule is divided into three subparts and an Appendix.  It has a look and feel similar to the previous regulation to make it easy for those familiar with the previous regulation to use the new one.

## Rule Structure (Continued)

- Title 23, Part 500 – Management and Monitoring Systems
- Title 49, Part 613 – Metropolitan and Statewide Planning

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
This Final Rule also updates 23 CFR Part 500 regarding the Congestion Management System – identified in 23 CFR Part 450 as the Congestion Management Process.  Title 49, Part 613 is the FTA portion of the regulation.  This section states that “The regulations in 23 CFR 450, shall be followed in complying with the requirements of this subpart.”

## Final Rule Key Requirements

- Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Now that we have reviewed the major changes that were made between the NPRM and the Final Rule, we would like to spend some time addressing the key requirements in the final rule.  As stated earlier, these requirements are based on legislative changes (primarily from SAFETEA-LU and TEA-21) or are brought forward from the previous rule.
The Key Requirements are organized around three topics:
Scope of the Transportation Planning Process:  Slides 11-21
Consultation/Participation Requirements:  Slides 22-27
Products from the Transportation Planning Process:  Slides 28-36

## Expanded Factor – Consistency with Growth and Economic Development

- Planning factor to “protect and enhance environment, promote energy conservation and improve quality of life” expanded to also include “promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns” *[23 CFR 450.206 and 450.306]*
- Flexibility for States and MPOs to determine which agencies with whom to coordinate

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
SAFETEA-LU made a few changes to the planning factors established by TEA-21.
First, the planning factor to “protect and enhance environment, promote energy conservation and improve quality of life”  was expanded to also include “promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns.” 
The term “promote” recognizes the challenges that may be faced in communicating and coordinating with new planning partners. The Final Rule language, taken directly from the statute, contemplates a good faith effort. The speed with which this occurs and progress toward success will vary from place to place. 
This Final Rule provides States and MPOs with the flexibility to determine which agencies with whom to coordinate, but could include local governments, regional planning agencies, and local/regional/state economic development agencies/offices.
And, overall – the extent and types of consideration of the planning factors in metropolitan and  statewide transportation planning will depend upon the scale and complexity of the transportation, land use, employment, economic development, environmental, and housing/community development situation in the area.

## Separate Factor –Security

- Security and Safety Stand-Alone Planning Factors
- De-coupling Safety and Security adds emphasis to each *[23 CFR 450.206 and 450.306]*
- Encourages transportation planning process to be consistent with applicable security plans, programs, and projects *[23 CFR 450.208(h) and 450.306(h)]*
- Long-range statewide and metropolitan transportation plans should include a security element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, or projects set forth in other transit safety and security planning and review processes, plans, and programs, as appropriate *[23 CFR 450.214(e) and 450.322(h)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Further, the safety and security factors were separated to individual factors to highlight the importance of each issue.
Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes are encouraged, to the extent practicable, to be coordinated with security initiatives undertaken by the State, MPO, transit operators, and localities.
To emphasize security in the transportation planning process “Long-range statewide and metropolitan transportation plans should include a security element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, or projects set forth in other transit safety and security planning and review processes, plans, and programs” was included in the Final Rule.

## Separate Factor - Safety

- Strategic Highway Safety Plan
- Encourages transportation planning process to be consistent with new Strategic Highway Safety Plan  *[23 CFR 450.208(h) and 450.306(h)]*
- Long-range statewide and metropolitan transportation plans should include a safety element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, countermeasures, or projects contained in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan *[23 CFR 450.214(d) and 450.322(h)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Another important SAFETEA-LU requirement that planners should be aware of is the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).  The SHSP appears in Section 1401 of SAFETEA-LU as part of the section on the Highway Safety Improvement Program. 
A SHSP is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The SHSP strategically establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas developed in consultation with Federal, State, local, and private sector safety stakeholders, as well as operators of other modes.   It is important that transportation planners be involved in the SHSP process.  
The Final Rule encourages transportation plans to include a safety element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, countermeasures, or projects contained in the SHSP.

## Planning and the Environment 

- Environmental Mitigation Activities and Consultation
- Long-range statewide transportation plans/metropolitan transportation plans include a discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities (at the policy and/or strategic-levels). *[see 23 CFR 450.214(j) and 450.322(f)(7)]*
- Developed in consultation with Federal, State and Tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies
- Allows States/MPOs to establish reasonable timeframes for performing consultation

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Long-range statewide transportation plans and metropolitan transportation plans shall include a discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities (at the policy and/or strategic-levels, not project-specific). 
In developing this discussion in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies, States and MPOs may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this consultation.
This focus on policies, programs, and strategies (generically) is not intended to be project-focused nor constitute the start of formal environmental review, per NEPA.
For further clarification ,see the definition of “Environmental Mitigation Activity,” in 23 CFR 450.104, which is
Serve to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts associated with implementation of the transportation plan
Considers neighborhoods, homes, businesses, cultural resources, parks, recreation areas, wetlands, water sources, forests, agriculture, etc.
Regional scope – may not necessarily address individual projects

## Planning and the Environment (Continued)

- Linking Planning and NEPA *[see 23 CFR 450.212 , 450.318(b), and Appendix A] *
- Included as Appendix A – non-binding guidance, based on February 2005 FHWA/FTA program guidance
- Fulfills TEA-21 requirement for Secretary of Transportation to eliminate the major investment study as a separate requirement and, as appropriate, integrate the requirement into the transportation planning and NEPA process
_***Permissive – identifies conditions for planning studies to inform environmental reviews***_

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Appendix A 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.
Further, Section 1308 of TEA-21 required the Secretary to eliminate the MIS as a separate requirement, and promulgate regulations to integrate such requirement, as appropriate, as part of the transportation planning process.  Appendix A fulfills that Congressional direction by providing explanatory information regarding how the MIS requirement can be integrated into the transportation planning process.  Inclusion of this explanatory information as an Appendix to the regulation will make the information more readily available to users of the regulation, and will provide notice to all interested persons of the agencies’ official guidance on MIS integration with the planning process.  
Attachment of Appendix A to this rule provides convenient reference for State DOTs, MPOs and public transportation operator(s) who choose to incorporate planning results and decisions in the NEPA process.   It also makes the information readily available to the public.  Additionally, the FHWA and the FTA will work with Federal environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies to incorporate the principles of Appendix A in their day-to-day NEPA policies and procedures related to their involvement in highway and transit projects. 
Examples of transportation planning decisions and analyses that may be carried through to the project development and environmental review process include foundations for purpose and need statements, preliminary screening, evaluation and elimination of alternatives, planning-level evaluation of indirect and cumulative effects, and regional or eco-system-level mitigation options and priorities.

## Operational and Management Strategies

- Metropolitan transportation plans _shall_ include operational and management strategies to:
- Improve the performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve congestion _**and**_
- Maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods *[see 23 CFR 450.322(f)(3)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The Final Rule strengthens expectations for operational and management strategies in the transportation planning process.
Metropolitan transportation plans shall include operational and management strategies to:	
Improve the performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve congestion
Maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods
This reinforces the long-standing planning factor to “Promote efficient system management and operation” (23 CFR 450.306)

## Operational and Management Strategies (Continued)

- Long-range statewide transportation plans _should_ include: capital, operations and management strategies, investments, procedures, and other measures to ensure the preservation and most efficient use of existing transportation system *[see 23 CFR 450.214(b)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Long-range statewide transportation plans should include: capital, operations and management strategies, investments, procedures, and other measures to ensure the preservation and most efficient use of existing transportation system. 
FHWA/FTA will soon issue reference/resource documents on the inclusion of operational and management strategies in metropolitan transportation plans and long-range statewide transportation plan to supplement these two new regulatory provisions.  An element of these reference/resource documents will be practical application examples from State DOTs, MPOs, and public transportation operators.

## Congestion Management Process in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs)

- Coordination as part of Congestion Management Process (CMP):
- CMP should result in multimodal system performance measures and strategies *[see 23 CFR 450.320]*
- Revises 23 CFR 500.109 regarding Congestion Management Systems
- Key Input to Development of Metropolitan Transportation Plans in TMAs

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
SAFETEA-LU requires that the planning process in a TMA include a congestion management “process” instead of a “system.”  The Final Rule is based on most of the information on “congestion management systems” previously contained in 23 CFR part 500.  The Final Rule mostly duplicates the TMA congestion management system requirements contained in the former in 23 CFR 450.320 and 23 CFR 500.109.  The intent is to reiterate the importance of the congestion management process to TMA transportation planning and programming and fully integrate this TMA requirement with the rest of the requirements for TMA planning processes. 
The CMP shall provide for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of performance, defining objectives and associated performance measures, establish a coordinated data collection program, identify projected benefits, and periodically assess the effectiveness of implemented strategies.
The former CMS requirement, perhaps because it was a separate regulation, had 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 Final Rule reflects the goal that the CMP be an integral part of developing a transportation plan and TIP for TMA MPOs.  The Final Rule 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 metropolitan transportation plan and the transportation systems operational and management strategies for a region (23 CFR 450.320(c)).  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.

## MPO Designations/Redesignations 

- Official agreements required among multiple MPOs in UZAs *[see 23 CFR 450.310(l)-(m)]*
- Redesignation required if substantial change:
- In proportion of voting members
- In decision-making authority or responsibility of MPO

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The Final Rule clarifies the requirements and expectations for MPO designations and redesignations.  Some of these provisions were based on March 30, 2005 guidance issued by FHWA/FTA, which has now been incorporated into and superseded by the Final Rule. 

## MPO Designations/Redesignations (Continued)

- Redesignation not required as result of:
- New Urbanized Area census designation;
- New members from expanded planning area;
- New members as a result of TMA designation; or
- Periodic rotation of membership.
**Prior MPO designation remains in effect until redesignation**

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The Final Rule is based on March 30, 2005, FHWA/FTA guidance that addressed inconsistencies that existed between 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and former 23 CFR Part 450 on the designation and redesignation of MPOs.  This former guidance has now been incorporated into and superseded by the Final Rule. 
The Final Rule provides 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.

## Consultation

- Definitions for “Consultation,” “Coordination,” “Consideration,” and “Cooperation” *[23 CFR 450.104]*
- Repeats SAFETEA-LU language for consultation with State, Tribal and local agencies *[23 CFR 450.214(i), 450.316(b) and 450.322(g)]*
- No change to requirements for consultation with non-metropolitan local officials *[23 CFR 450.210(b)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
This slide begins the discussion of the next general topic of this presentation: Participation/Consultation Requirements:  Slides 22-27
The rule, in Subpart A, clarifies the definitions of a variety of terms, including “consultation,” “coordination,” “consideration,” and “cooperation.”  Consultation requirements are enhanced in the rule.  
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.  This definition does not apply to the ‘‘consultation’’ performed by the States and the MPOs in comparing the long-range statewide transportation plan and the metropolitan transportation plan, respectively, to State and Tribal conservation plans or maps or inventories of natural or historic resources (see 23 CFR § 450.214(i) and 23 CFR § 450.322(g)(1) and (g)(2)).
Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the transportation planning and programming processes work together to achieve a common goal or objective.
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.
Note that there is no change from the regulatory requirements for consultation with non-metropolitan local elected officials, which were established in January 2003.

## Consultation (Continued)

- Long-range statewide transportation plan shall be developed, as appropriate, in consultation with State, tribal, and local agencies responsible for:
- Land Use Management;
- Natural Resources;
- Environmental Protection;
- Conservation; and
- Historic Preservation.
- Shall involve _comparison_ of transportation plans to State/Tribal conservation plans or maps, and to inventories of natural or historic resources, if available *[see 23 CFR 450.214(i)]*
- Similar provisions for the development of metropolitan transportation plans *[see 23 CFR 450.322(g)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
SAFETEA-LU introduces a new consultation requirement for the long-range statewide transportation plan (as appropriate) and defines the ways in which this consultation can take place.  Please note that, in this particular case, the legislation defines how the consultation shall take place, which is different from the definition of “consultation” used elsewhere in this Final Rule.
MPOs have similar consultation requirements for metropolitan transportation plan development as State DOTs do for statewide transportation plans; however, MPOs are not required to consult with Tribes or compare the transportation plans to tribal conservation plans or maps, but are encouraged to do so.  
In the metropolitan transportation planning process, transportation plans shall involve, as appropriate, comparison with State conservation plans or maps, if available; or comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources” (23 CFR 450.322(g)).  The term “or” substitutes for the term “and” as reflected in SAFETEA-LU Section 6001.

## Coordination of Planning Process Activities

- States shall coordinate data collection and analyses with MPOs and public transportation operators *[see 23 CFR 450.208(a)(7)]*
- States/MPOs may apply asset management principles and techniques to establish planning goals, define STIP/TIP priorities, and assess transportation investments  *[see 23 CFR 450.208(e) and 450.306(e)]*
- Statewide/metropolitan transportation planning processes shall (to the maximum extent practicable) be consistent with the development of regional ITS architectures  *[see 23 CFR 450.208(f) and 450.306(f)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
Based on changes in SAFETEA-LU, the Final Rule requires specific additional coordination activities in the statewide and metropolitan planning processes.  These additional coordination activities are identified on this slide.

## Interested Parties, Public Involvement, and Consultation

- List of “interested parties” now includes:  representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities,  representatives of the disabled, freight shippers and providers of freight transportation services *[see 23 CFR 450.210(a)(1)(i) and 450.316(a)] *
- _Documented_ State and MPO processes on consulting with Indian Tribal governments and Federal land management agencies (to the extent practicable)  *[see 23 CFR 450.210(c) and 450.316(e)]*
- _Documented_ MPO processes also should reference consultation with other planning agencies and officials affected by transportation (to the extent practicable) *[see 23 CFR 450.316(e)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
SAFETEA-LU expanded the list of interested parties identified in previous legislation.  “Interested parties” now also include: representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, freight shippers and providers of freight transportation services in addition to:
Citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, representatives of users of public transportation, private providers of transportation, and other interested parties
The FHWA and the FTA support efforts to consult with Indian Tribal governments and find that documentation of consultation processes are essential to a party’s ability to understand when, how, and where the party can be involved.  Therefore, to strengthen the involvement of Indian Tribal governments in the statewide transportation planning process, the Final Rule requires documented State and MPO processes on consulting with Indian Tribal governments and Federal land management agencies (to the extent practicable). 
Documented statewide planning public involvement process also is required.  
MPO consultation should include agencies and officials responsible for planned growth and economic development, environmental protection, airport operations, or freight movement. 

## Participation Plan

- MPO shall develop a participation plan in consultation with interested parties *[see 23 CFR 450.316(a)]*
- Minimum 45-day comment period
- Adequate, timely public notice and reasonable access
- Employ visualization techniques
- Make information available in electronic formats; and
- Hold meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times
- Statewide public involvement process similar *[see 23 CFR 450.210]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
SAFETEA-LU introduces a new requirement for MPOs to develop “Participation Plans.”  These “Participation Plans” are similar to the “public involvement plans” required under the previous regulation.  The most significant difference is that “Participation Plans” shall be developed in consultation with interested parties and that these documents outline the approaches chosen by local officials for using electronic media and visualization techniques, as stated below. The Final Rule implements a minimum public comment period of 45 calendar days before an initial or revised Participation Plan is adopted by the MPO. 
Other important public participation requirements include:
Adequate, timely public notice and reasonable access;
Employ visualization techniques;
Make information available in electronic formats; and
Hold meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times
The State must develop, document, and use a similar public involvement process, although the State is not required to develop a “participation plan.”  (Note: The Statewide public involvement process shall be separate and discrete from the non-metropolitan local consultation process.)

## Visualization 

- New SAFETEA-LU requirement *[see 23 CFR 450.210(a)(1)(v) and 450.316(a)(1)(iii)]*
- Recognizes range of capabilities and needs
- Emphasis on promoting improved understanding of transportation plans and programs in the definition

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
SAFETEA-LU introduced a new requirement for the use of visualization techniques: “methods used by States and MPOs in the development of transportation plans and programs with the public, elected and appointed officials, and other stakeholders in a clear and easily accessible format such as maps, pictures, and/or displays, to promote improved understanding of existing or proposed transportation plans and programs.”
Visualization techniques is defined as “methods used by States and MPOs in the development of transportation plans and programs with the public, elected and appointed officials, and other stakeholders in a clear and easily accessible format such as maps, pictures, and/or displays, to promote improved understanding of existing or proposed transportation.”
The purpose of using visualization techniques is to promote improved understanding of transportation plans and programs.  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 and State DOT capabilities and needs.  States and MPOs may use everything from static maps to interactive GIS, 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 we encourage States and MPOs to identify and implement the most appropriate visualization technique for their particular circumstances, the Final Rule does not 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.  (Techniques also may be “low tech.”)
The Participation Plan (MPOs) and documented public involvement process (States) should each describe the techniques that will be used.  This discussion should be based on what is locally deemed most appropriate to the area. 

## Metropolitan Planning Agreements

- Locally determined “rules of engagement” *[see 23 CFR 450. 314]*
- Shall provide for cooperative development and sharing of financial data used in metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, STIPs, and Annual Listing of Obligated Projects
- Ideally, a single Agreement among MPO, State, and transit operators
- Describes coordination arrangements in areas with overlapping planning areas

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
To the extent possible, a single agreement among all responsible parties should be developed (23 CFR 450.314(a)).
If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an urbanized area, there shall be a written agreement among the MPOs, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) describing how the metropolitan transportation planning process will be coordinated to assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs across the metropolitan planning area boundaries (23 CFR 450.314(d))
If part of an urbanized area that has been designed as a TMA overlaps into an adjacent metropolitan planning area serving an urbanized area that is not designated as a TMA, the adjacent urbanized area shall not be treated as a TMA.  However, a written agreement shall be established between the MPOs with metropolitan planning area boundaries including a portion of the TMA, which clearly identifies the roles and responsibilities of each MPO in meeting specific TMA requirements (23 CFR 450.314(f))

## Definitions

- Planning cycles
- Update
- Revision
- Amendment
- Administrative modification
- Fiscal constraint
- Available funds and
- Committed funds
- Financial plan
- Air quality conformity

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The regulation, for the first time, defines many terms that have been in use for quite some time in the planning process.  Some of the more significant terms that are defined are included on this slide.
The Final Rule defines the term “update” as “making current a long-range statewide transportation plan, metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP through a comprehensive review.” Of course, States and MPOs may choose to “update” their transportation plans and programs well in advance of the prescribed update cycles. Updates are significant events and require public review and comment, re-establishment of a 20-year horizon year for metropolitan transportation plans and long-range statewide transportation plans, a re-established four-year program period for TIPs and STIPs, demonstration of fiscal constraint (except for long-range statewide transportation plans), and a conformity determination (for metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs in nonattainment and maintenance areas).”
Other changes to the transportation plan, TIP or STIP are defined as “revisions.”   “Revision means a change to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that occurs between scheduled periodic updates.  A major revision is an “amendment,” while a minor revision is an “administrative modification.” Amendments require public review and comment, demonstration of fiscal constraint (except for long-range statewide transportation plans), and a conformity determination (for metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs in nonattainment and maintenance areas).” Administrative modifications allow minor changes without such actions.
In the area of fiscal constraint, definitions have been added for the terms “available funds” and “committed funds” and for “financial plan.”
The Final Rule also updates definitions of some terms in the air quality conformity area to bring them into agreement with EPA conformity regulations.

## Planning Cycles

- Metropolitan transportation plans must be updated at least every four years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas *[see 23 CFR 450.322(c)]*
- Metropolitan transportation plans in attainment areas must be updated at least every five years *[see 23 CFR 450.322 (i)]*
- STIPs and metropolitan TIPs must be updated at least every four years *[see 23 CFR 450.216(a) and 450.324(a)]*
- STIPs and TIPs shall cover a period of no less than four years *[see 23 CFR 450.216(a) and 450.324(a)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
SAFETEA-LU changed the update cycles for metropolitan transportation plans (in air quality nonattainment areas), STIPs, and TIPs.  The new regulation reflects this change. SAFETEA-LU further changed the span of program years in TIPs and STIPs from three to four years. Any information included for years five and beyond are for information only. Project schedules may be shifted without amendment only among the first four years of the TIP and STIP.

## July 1, 2007 Compliance Date

- All State, MPO and FHWA/FTA actions on transportation plans and programs taken on or after July 1, 2007 (i.e., updates, amendments, STIP approvals, and conformity determinations) are subject to these provisions *[23 CFR 450.224 and 450.338)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
The SAFETEA-LU requirement “Beginning July 1, 2007, State or metropolitan planning organization plan or program updates shall reflect changes made by this section” has caused significant discussion within the transportation planning community.  
FHWA and FTA issued guidance on May 2, 2006 to further address this issue prior to development of the NPRM and the Final Rule.  The Final Rule reflects the information in the May 2, 2006 FHWA/FTA guidance, which has now been incorporated into and superseded by the Final Rule.  In short, transportation plans, TIPs and STIPs adopted and approved prior to July 1, 2007, may be developed under TEA-21 requirements.
Amendments or updates after July 1, 2007 are subject to the provisions in the Final Rule.  However, administrative modifications may continue after July 1, 2007.
States and MPOs should not wait until just before the July 1, 2007 deadline to submit a new SAFETEA-LU-compliant transportation program or plan. Historically, FHWA/FTA have interpreted statutory and regulatory deadlines to mean that FHWA/FTA action must be completed within the deadline (i.e., by July 1, 2007 in this case). In particular, States and MPOs should coordinate closely with FHWA/FTA field offices to ensure that FHWA/FTA will be able to act on any “pre-SAFETEA-LU” TIPs, STIPs, and transportation plans prior to July 1, 2007.

## Fiscal Constraint 

- Fiscal constraint required for STIPs, TIPs, and metropolitan transportation plans
- Retains provision that projects included in the first two years of the TIP/STIP in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas shall be limited to those for which funds are “available or committed” *[see 23 CFR 450.324(i) and 450.216(m)]*
- “Agreed to” list of projects required at TIP/STIP updates only

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
This slide begins the section on the final general topic in this presentation, Products from the Transportation Planning Process:  Slides 32-36
Since its introduction under the ISTEA, fiscal constraint has remained a prominent aspect of transportation plan and program development, carrying through to TEA-21 and now to SAFETEA-LU.
Fiscal constraint is required for STIPs, TIPs, and metropolitan transportation plans.
The Final Rule retains the provision from the previous rule that projects included in the first two years of the TIP/STIP in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas shall be limited to those for which funds are “available or committed.”
The TIP/STIP represents an “agreed to” list of projects that the MPO or State will implement throughout the cycle of the program.  This “agreed to” list is established only during TIP/STIP “updates.”  FHWA/FTA recognize that revisions will be made to the TIP/STIP, and, therefore, the amendments to the “agreed to” list may occur within update cycles. 

## Annual List of Obligated Projects  

- Reflects expanded requirement to specifically include bicycle and pedestrian projects *[see 23 CFR 450.332]*
- Annual listing cooperatively developed by the MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s) - within 90 days of end of program year
- Cooperative effort between the MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s) to assemble supporting financial information must be identified in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement *[see 23 CFR 450.314(a)]*

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
SAFETEA-LU retained the TEA-21 requirement for an Annual List of Obligated Projects.  However, SAFETEA-LU specified that 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 in the Final Rule.
Information should include: 
original programmed amount;
amount actually obligated; and 
unobligated amount available for reprogramming.
The ways that MPOs, States, and transit operators will cooperate in financial planning are to be defined in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement.  (23 CFR 450.314(a))
The list shall be developed within 90 calendar days of the end of the program year.  
The term “Obligated Projects” is defined in 23 CFR 450.104.

## Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan

- Coordinated plan needed for funding under Elderly/Disabled, JARC and New Freedom Programs under Title 49 (transit)
- Consistency required between preparation of the Coordinated Plan and applicable metropolitan or Statewide transportation planning processes *[see 23 CFR 450.306(g)]*
- Local officials to determine appropriate “lead;” does _not_ have to be MPO
- Projects reflected in applicable metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
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; Job Access and Reverse Commute; and New Freedom 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.
The rule defines “Coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” as a locally developed, coordinated transportation plan that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes, provides strategies for meeting those local needs, and prioritizes transportation services for funding and implementation.
The coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan should be prepared in full coordination and be consistent with the metropolitan transportation planning process. 
This document is not the same as the MPO long range transportation plan. It is more than a project list – contains documented analysis results and the universe of  project recommendations – not fiscally constrained – from which those for implementation are selected.
These will typically be projects that may appropriately be grouped for inclusion in the in the plan, TIP and STIP (see 23 CFR 450.216(j) and 23 CFR 450.324(f)).

## Public Outreach

- April 19, 2007: CTE national broadcast
- _[http://cte.ncsu.edu/CTE/TechTransfer/Teleconferences/](http://cte.ncsu.edu/CTE/TechTransfer/Teleconferences/)_
- National and regional stakeholder group events by invitation
- Others as appropriate

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
In addition to developing this presentation, the FHWA and the FTA are conducting a number of outreach sessions to a wide range of stakeholder groups to explain the Final Rule.
FHWA and FTA are responding to as many invitations to present at national and regional events as possible.

## Questions

- FHWA Division Office
- www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/hepdivoff.htm
- FTA Regional Office
- www.planning.dot.gov/Contacts.asp#ftareg

- As of April 3, 2007

**Notes:**
For more information, please contact your FHWA Division Office or FTA Regional Office.