33922 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 450 and 1410

Federal Transit Administration

23 CFR Part 1410

49 CFR Parts 613 and 621

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–99–5933]

FHWA RIN 2125–AE62; FTA RIN 2132–AA66

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 revisions to the regulations

governing the development of

transportation plans and programs for

urbanized (metropolitan) areas and

statewide transportation plans and

programs. These revisions are a product

of statutory changes made by the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA–21) enacted on June 9,

1998, and generally would revise

existing regulatory language to make it

consistent with current statutory

requirements. In addition, the proposed

regulatory language addresses the

implementation of Presidential

Executive Order 12898 regarding

Environmental Justice. These changes

are being proposed in concert with

revisions to regulations regarding

environmental impact and related

procedures which are published

separately in today’s Federal Register.

The two rules are linked in terms of

their working relationship and the

FHWA and the FTA are soliciting

comments on each rule individually, as

well as their intended functional and

operational interrelationships.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 23, 2000. For dates of

public information meetings see

‘‘Supplementary Information.’’

ADDRESSES: All signed, written

comments must refer to the docket

number appearing at the top of this

document and must be submitted to the

Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001. All

comments received will be available for

examination at the above address

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Those desiring notification of receipt of

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or

postcard. For addresses of public

information meetings see

‘‘Supplementary Information.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

the FHWA: Mr. Sheldon M. Edner,

Metropolitan Planning and Policies

Team (HEPM), (202) 366–4066

(metropolitan planning), Mr. Dee Spann,

Statewide Planning Team (HEPS), (202)

366–4086 (statewide planning), or Mr.

Reid Alsop, Office of the Chief Counsel

(HCC–31), (202) 366–1371. For the FTA:

Mr. Charles Goodman, Metropolitan

Planning Division (TPL–12)

(metropolitan planning), (202) 366–

1944, Mr. Paul Verchinski, Statewide

Planning Division (TPL–11)(statewide

planning), (202) 366–6385, or Mr. Scott

Biehl, Office of the Chief Counsel (TCC–

30), (202) 366–0952. Both agencies are

located at 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. Office hours for

the 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:

Electronic Access

Internet users may access all

comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, by using the

universal resource locator (URL): http:/

/dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours

each day, 365 days each year. Please

follow the instructions online for more

information and help.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a computer,

modem and suitable communications

software from the Government Printing

Office’s Electronic Bulletin Board

Service at (202)512–1661. Internet users

may reach the Office of the Federal

Register’s home page at: http://

www.nara.gov/fedreg and the

Government Printing Office’s web page

at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Public Information Meetings

We will hold a series of seven public

briefings within the comment period for

the NPRM. The purpose of these

briefings is to explain the content of the

NPRM and encourage public input to

the final rulemaking. The meetings will

address this NPRM, the companion

NPRM on the environmental (National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)) process, and the NPRM on

Intelligent Transportation Systems

Architecture consistency. The meetings

will be scheduled from approximately 8

a.m. to 5 p.m. at the locations listed

below. Further information and any

changes in addresses, dates and other

logistical information will be made

available after the publication of this

NPRM through the FHWA and the FTA

websites, and through other public

announcement avenues and the

newsletters and websites of major

stakeholder groups. Individuals wishing

information, but without access to these

sources, may contact the individuals

listed in the above caption FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

The structure of the meetings will

emphasize brief presentations by the

DOT staff regarding the content of the

NPRM. A period for clarifying questions

will be provided. Under current

statutory and regulatory provisions, the

DOT staff will not be permitted to

engage in a substantive dialog regarding

what the content of the NPRMs and the

final regulations should be. Attendees

wishing to express ideas and thoughts

regarding the final content of the rules

should direct those comments to the

docket. Briefing sites will include:

Boston, MA, Auditorium, Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center,

55 Broadway, June 9, 2000; Atlanta, GA,

Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210

Peachtree Street, June 20, 2000;

Washington, D.C., Marriott Metro

Center, 775 12th Street, NW, June 23,

2000; Chicago, IL, Holiday Inn Mart

Plaza, 350 North Orleans Street, June 27,

2000; Denver, CO, Marriott City Center,

1701 California Street, June 30 , 2000;

Dallas, TX, Hyatt Regency Hotel Dallas,

300 Reunion Boulevard, July 11, 2000;

and, San Francisco, CA, Radisson

Miyako, 1625 Post Street, July 19, 2000.

As part of the outreach process

planned for these proposed rules, the

FHWA/FTA will be conducting a

national teleconference on June 15, 2000

from 1–4 p.m. eastern time, through the

auspices of the Center for

Transportation and the Environment at

North Carolina State University. The

teleconference will be accessible

through numerous downlink locations

nationwide and further information can

be obtained from Ms. Katie McDermott

at kpm@unity.ncsu.edu. The purpose of

the teleconference is to describe the

proposed new statewide and

metropolitan planning, National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA), Public Law 91–190, 83 Stat.

852, implementation, and Intelligent

Transportation Systems (ITS) rules.

An overview of each of the three

notices of proposed rulemaking

(NPRMs) will be presented and the

audience (remote and local) will have

opportunities to ask questions and seek

clarification of FHWA/FTA proposals.

By sponsoring this teleconference it is

hoped that interest in the NPRMs is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33923

generated, that stakeholders will be well

informed about FHWA/FTA proposals,

and that interested parties will

participate in the rulemaking process by

submitting written suggestions,

comments and concerns to the docket.

Background

Sections 1203, 1204, and 1308 of the

TEA–21, Public Law 105–178, 112 Stat.

107, amended 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135,

which require a continuing,

comprehensive, and coordinated

transportation planning process in

metropolitan areas and States. Similar

changes were made by sections 3004,

3005, and 3006 of the TEA–21 to 49

U.S.C. 5303–5306 which address the

metropolitan planning process in the

context of the FTA’s responsibilities.

We are proposing revisions to our

current metropolitan and statewide

planning regulations and are inviting

comments on the proposed revisions.

General Information Concerning

Development of Regulation

Approach to Structure of Proposed

Regulation

Revisions to the current regulation at

23 CFR part 450 are being proposed to

reflect the impacts of the TEA–21. We

have adopted an approach to the

proposed revisions that will rely heavily

on guidance and good practice. The

proposed regulatory language attempts

to respond to legislative mandates and

changes with minimal amplification

where feasible. In some cases, other

factors, e.g., court cases, presidential

directives, etc., have provided a

stimulus for change and amplification.

In these instances, the agencies have

tried to keep regulatory language to a

minimum except where clarification

would assist appropriate agencies and

groups in complying.

In a separate document in today’s

Federal Register, we propose to remove

23 CFR part 771 and add parts 1420 and

1430 in its stead. This regulation

implements the FTA and the FHWA

processes for complying with the

Council on Environmental Quality’s

(CEQ) regulations for implementing the

NEPA, Public Law 91–190, 83 Stat. 852.

Jointly administered by the FTA and the

FHWA, part 771 was last revised in

1987. The passage of the TEA–21 and its

predecessor, the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(ISTEA), Public Law 102–240, 105 Stat.

1914, have contributed legislative

impetus to a revision. To facilitate

compliance with section 1308 of the

TEA–21 dealing with major investment

studies and section 1309 addressing

environmental streamlining and twelve

years of court rulings and experience,

we propose to revise the regulations

regarding environmental impact and

related procedures in conjunction with

those for metropolitan and statewide

transportation planning. In general, the

intent is to more effectively link the two

regulations to facilitate integration of

decisions, reduce paperwork and

analytical activity where feasible, and to

refine procedures and processes to

achieve greater efficiency of decision

making. In addition, we believe that an

integrated approach to planning and

project development (NEPA process

plus additional project level actions

needed to prepare for project

implementation) will contribute to more

effective and environmentally sound

decisions regarding investment choices

and trade-offs.

In preparing this proposed rule, we

have attempted to maintain or reduce

the level of data collection and analyses

that is currently required. We solicit

comment on the extent to which this

strategy has been achieved. Comments

suggesting that the strategy has not been

successful should identify specific

requirements and/or provisions that

increase burdens and provide specific

reasons for this increase. The degree or

extent of the increase should be

identified also. Suggestions to lessen

burdens are welcome.

In the proposed rule, we revised the

section headings to utilize more

commonplace language and for clarity.

The substance of the sections is

modified in some cases as described

below. The organization of each section

and overall flow of organization remains

predominantly unchanged, except as

indicated in the section-by-section

discussion.

In addition, we are proposing a new

numbering scheme. Current part 450

would be redesignated as part 1410.

Input to Development of Proposed

Regulation

As noted above, the TEA–21 was

signed into law on June 9, 1998.

Subsequently, the DOT initiated a series

of national meetings to solicit input

regarding possible approaches to

implementing the new legislation. The

results of the principal public sessions

in this outreach effort are summarized

in ‘‘Listening to America: TEA–21

Outreach Summary, 1998.’’ This

document was published by the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. Department of

Transportation. It is currently available

online through the following website:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/listamer.htm.

Additionally, on February 10, 1999, we

issued a discussion paper (Federal

Highway Administration and Federal

Transit Administration, TEA–21

Planning and Environmental Provisions:

Options for Discussion) to further solicit

public comments regarding previously

provided suggestions. This discussion

paper was designed to reflect comments

from stakeholder groups and encourage

all interested parties to provide

additional detailed comments on

approaches to implementing the

statutory provisions for the planning

and environmental sections of the law.

The Options Paper is available online at

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

tea21imp.htm.

Overall Strategy for Regulatory

Development

Our strategy for regulatory

development has three principal

elements: (1) Outreach and listening to

stakeholders, (2) developing

improvements that will allow the

FHWA, the FTA, the States and

metropolitan areas to demonstrate

measurable progress toward achieving

congressional objectives, and (3) looking

internally, with our Federal partner

agencies, at how we collectively can

improve coordination and performance.

As indicated above, the FHWA and

the FTA, in concert with the Office of

the Secretary and other modal

administrations within the DOT,

developed and implemented an

extensive public outreach process on all

elements of the TEA–21. The process

began shortly after the legislation was

enacted on June 9, 1998, and various

types of outreach activities have been

underway since that time. The initial

six-month departmentwide outreach

process included twelve regional forums

and over 50 focus groups and

workshops (63 FR 40330, July 28, 1998).

The DOT heard from over 3,000 people,

including members of Congress,

Governors and Mayors, other elected

officials, transportation practitioners at

all levels, community activists and

environmentalists, freight shippers and

suppliers, and other interested

individuals. The input received was

valuable and has helped us shape our

implementation strategy, guidance and

regulations. Those comments will be

placed in this docket as informational

background.

With respect to the planning and

environmental provisions of the TEA–

21, we learned a great deal through the

twelve regional forums and focus group

sessions and subsequently implemented

a second, more focused phase of

outreach which included issuing an

Options Paper for discussion on the

Planning and Environmental

Streamlining Provisions of the TEA–21.

The contents of the Options Paper

33924 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

reflected input received up to that time

and built upon the existing statewide

and metropolitan planning regulations

and our implementing regulation for the

NEPA. We released the Options Paper

on February 10, 1999, and received

comments through April 30, 1999.

More than 150 different sets of

comments were received from State

Departments of Transportation (State

DOTs), Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPOs), counties,

regional planning commissions, other

Federal agencies, transit agencies,

bicycle advocacy groups, engineering

organizations, consultants, historical

commissions, environmental groups,

and customers—the American public.

These comments were all reviewed and

taken into consideration in the

development of this notice of proposed

rulemaking.

Another element of outreach included

meetings between the FHWA and the

FTA and key stakeholder groups, other

Federal agencies, and the regional and

field staff within the FHWA and the

FTA. These sessions also helped guide

us in developing this notice of proposed

rulemaking. Comments on this NPRM

are welcomed and will be taken into

account prior to the issuance of a final

regulation on statewide and

metropolitan planning under the TEA–

21.

The Options Paper comments are

contained in the docket and are

summarized below. This general

summary is structured around the issues

as presented in the Options Paper and

seeks to provide an overall perspective

on the range of opinions submitted to

the FHWA and the FTA. Details on

specific comments and input can be

obtained by reviewing the materials in

the docket.

These proposed rules were developed

by an interagency task force of planners

and environmental specialists of the

FHWA and the FTA, with input from

other DOT modal agencies, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), other Federal agencies and the

Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT. The

task force reviewed all input received

from the outreach process and through

other sources which communicate

regularly with the DOT. In addition,

comments were solicited from the field

staff of the FHWA and the FTA.

Summary of Comments Received on

Options Paper

The following discussion summarizes

the comments received on the Options

Paper and the response we are generally

taking in structuring this proposed rule.

This summary focuses only on the

comments directly related to planning.

The comments regarding environmental

provisions, generally, are treated in the

preamble to the proposed revision to 23

CFR 771. Cross-cutting issues as

discussed in the Options Paper appear

in both preambles, as appropriate. Since

many commenters included both

planning and environmental topics in

their correspondence, an exact count of

planning versus environment issues in

the 150 comments received is not easy

or useful. The summary is not intended

to be complete or comprehensive.

Rather, it is provided to give the public

a general sense of the issues addressed

in the comments received. The views of

individual commenters can be obtained

by consulting the docket as indicated

above.

Planning Factors

We were offered a number of options

on how to ensure that the seven new

planning factors added by the TEA–21

are addressed in the metropolitan and

statewide planning processes. One

option is to include the TEA–21

statutory language in the planning

regulation and provide maximum

flexibility to States and MPOs to tailor

approaches to local conditions. In

addition, it was suggested that we

amplify the basic statutory language in

this regulation by providing information

to States and MPOs, including best

practices on approaches to considering

the factors, and technical assistance on

planning practices which integrate

consideration of the seven factors. A

third possibility was to develop specific

criteria for the consideration of each of

the seven factors, include the criteria in

this regulation, and require that State

DOTs and MPOs demonstrate

compliance through the planning

certification process.

The vast majority of comments

received on the planning factors,

including those from the Institute of

Transportation Engineers (ITE), the

National Association of County

Engineers (NACE), the Association of

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

(AMPO), and the American Association

of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO), supported a

twofold approach: (1) To include the

TEA–21 statutory language in the

planning regulation without further

regulatory requirements, and (2) to

provide technical assistance and

information on current practices to

States and MPOs to aid them in

consideration of the planning factors.

An additional point raised, by State

DOTs and MPOs in particular, was that

guidance, if issued by the FHWA and

the FTA, should not be construed as

constituting new, binding requirements

on State DOTs and MPOs.

Systems Operation and Management

and Integration of Intelligent

Transportation Systems Into the

Planning Process

The TEA–21 directs that operation

and management of the transportation

system requires greater attention during

planning. Capital investment, especially

for new capacity but also for system

preservation, has dominated traditional

transportation planning analyses and

decisions. Continuing fiscal constraint,

growing sensitivity to environmental

impacts of infrastructure and the need

for prudent management of

infrastructure all lead to a heightened

consideration of systems management

and operational strategies as part of

systems planning. The emergence of

various Intelligent Transportation

System (ITS) technologies as useful

tools in the operation and management

of the transportation system has also

highlighted the need to focus increased

attention in this area. An additional

factor in treating ITS as part of system

operation and management are the

requirements of section 5206(e) of the

TEA–21 regarding the consistency of

federally funded ITS projects (funded

with highway trust fund dollars) with

the National ITS Architecture.

Many individual State DOTs, MPOs,

and their national associations (AMPO

and AASHTO) expressed the view that

the planning factor requiring

consideration of strategies to promote

efficient system management and

operation is sufficient to direct States

and MPOs to consider operations and

management issues as an integral part of

their planning efforts. They indicated

that the seven factors are all important

and that to highlight consideration of

any one factor above all others is

inappropriate. Further, they felt that

treating operations and management

issues with any additional emphasis

would be duplicative and is not

necessary.

Only one commenter, the Maricopa

Association of Governments, explicitly

addressed the ITS matter. This agency

suggested that we implement a

requirement for federally funded ITS

projects to be in accord with a regional

ITS plan that is developed through a

cooperative process.

Cooperative Development of Revenue

Forecasts

The TEA–21 retained the basic

requirement for financially constrained

metropolitan plans and statewide and

metropolitan transportation

improvement programs (STIPs/TIPs).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33925

The TEA–21 clarifies the requirement

for cooperative development by States,

MPOs, and transit agencies of estimated

future levels of funding from local,

State, or Federal sources that may

reasonably be expected to be available

to metropolitan areas.

In general, many State DOTs and the

AASHTO seek the greatest flexibility

while MPOs and local governments seek

provisions which would ensure that

they get a ‘‘fair share’’ of Federal

funding. The NACE, the AMPO, the

National Association of Counties

(NACO), and the Surface Transportation

Policy Project (STPP) observe that a

formal process should be required based

upon consensus of the State, MPO, and

transit agencies (where applicable) and

that the process should be documented

and implemented with an adequate

phase-in period provided. The national

associations and many of their

constituent members commented that

the process which has evolved over the

past several years is inadequate for MPO

and local agency needs, and that the

Congress intended that this be rectified

through the TEA–21 clarifying language.

Both the NACE and the AMPO support

the development of formal procedures,

including decision rules for allocating

funds and the development of internal

and external dispute resolution and

appeals processes to ensure that revenue

forecasting is a truly collaborative

process. The NACE also suggests that

the FHWA and the FTA serve as

‘‘honest brokers’’ between State

transportation agencies and MPOs when

there is disagreement on revenue

forecasts and allocation.

Illustrative Projects

Organizations and agencies, including

the Indian Nation Council of

Governments, the Public Policy Institute

of California, the AMPO, and the EPA

raised concerns about the need for

coordination between States and MPOs

in cases where illustrative projects are

proposed to be added to metropolitan

area plans or TIPs. Specifically, it was

suggested that in metropolitan areas,

MPOs should have explicit approval

authority for the inclusion of such

projects in transportation plans and

TIPs and for the implementation of

illustrative projects.

On the whole, respondents supported

a position that illustrative projects are

important to them, but that such

projects should not be included in the

transportation plan or TIP conformity

analysis until formally amended into

the Plan/TIP. In addition, there was

considerable support for an approach

which requires MPO concurrence on

projects that are proposed to be

advanced to an MPO plan and/or TIP.

The Texas Natural Resources

Conservation Commission and the

Colorado DOT expressed concern that

illustrative projects would be allowed to

circumvent the planning process. State

DOTs, in particular, advocated allowing

illustrative projects to be included in

the conformity analyses for plans and

TIPs in order that it may be

demonstrated that they will not

jeopardize the conformity of plans and

TIPs.

The AASHTO and several State DOTs

felt that we are being too restrictive in

our definition of a financially

constrained plan. In short, these

commenters request more flexibility.

Some State DOTs, including the Texas,

New Jersey, Missouri, and Virginia

DOTs point out that they feel it entirely

appropriate to conduct NEPA related

project development activities and

studies on such projects, outside of the

fiscal constraint requirements. They

endorse amending such projects into the

plan and TIP when appropriate, and at

that time trigger fiscal constraint and

conformity requirements.

Annual Listing of Projects

During the outreach process, the

Missouri DOT, and the Denver Regional

Council of Governments (DRCOG)

remarked that MPOs do not have the

authority to obligate Federal funds and

that States and transit agencies are the

authorized recipients of Federal funds.

Therefore, they suggest, the States,

transit agencies, and/or the Federal

government need to provide the

necessary information to the MPOs in

order that they may comply with the

TEA–21 requirement for an annual

listing of projects.

The AMPO recommended that we

establish and maintain a project

monitoring system for the purpose of

tracking Federal highway and transit

obligations and that we make this

system accessible to the MPOs in order

that it might provide the basis for the

annual listing of projects. These

stakeholders are concerned that there be

clear direction to the implementing

agencies (States and transit agencies) for

meeting this TEA–21 requirement.

Further, they are concerned that MPOs,

without the assistance of implementing

agencies, do not have the necessary

information to comply with this

requirement. The American Road and

Transportation Builders Association

(ARTBA) felt the annual list should

include all obligated funds, rather than

just projects with Federal funding.

The U.S. EPA believes a nationally

uniform format for these lists should be

developed and that such lists should be

sent to State and Federal environmental

agencies, the interagency consultation

groups under the transportation

conformity regulation, and others.

The Transportation Equity Network

and the Center for Community Change

advocate the preparation of this list on

a zip-code basis and cited a U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) model. They

suggest a zip-code based list is easily

understandable by members of the

public.

Many of those who commented

supported an approach which would

provide easy public access to

information, through a wide means of

communication, as noted above. Many

stakeholders, including the AMPO and

the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet,

opposed a process which would require

the development of such a list through

the public involvement process of the

MPO. However, the American Planning

Association, the Surface Transportation

Policy Project, the Urban Habitat

Program, the Tri-State Transportation

Campaign, and the National Association

to Defend NEPA, among others,

supported the dissemination of the list,

once developed, through easily accessed

public distribution channels.

Coordination With Local Elected

Officials in Non-Metropolitan Areas

The NACO, the National Association

of Development Organizations, the

STPP, the York County Planning

Commission (Pennsylvania), the

Minnesota DOT, and the Georgia DOT

all suggested that where regional

planning organizations or councils of

government exist, they be considered as

an entity that States could work with to

facilitate the engagement of elected

officials. The NACE, U.S. House of

Representative Bob Ney and others

supported a two-phased approach: the

FHWA and the FTA would provide the

flexibility to States and local elected

officials to develop a process, and then

be provided ample time to document

and formalize the process pursuant to

the TEA–21. These commenters felt that

the flexibility to tailor approaches is

needed, but that documentation of the

agreed upon approach is also needed to

ensure it is implemented on a

continuing basis.

The National Association of Towns

and Townships suggested more formal

processes, like those that are in place in

some States, where local governments

form development districts or regional

development commissions, modeled to

some extent after the MPO process. The

Land-of-the-Sky Regional Council

indicated that this approach is

necessary to ensure rural officials have

33926 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

a voice in decision making and that

rural area needs are addressed. In

addition, they suggest that such an

approach ensures the coordination of a

broad array of objectives relating to

economic development, land use, and

transportation. State DOTs in Idaho,

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Wyoming, New York, Virginia and

Oklahoma suggested that existing local

official consultation arrangements are

adequate and that compliance with the

TEA–21 provision merely requires

documentation of existing

arrangements.

20-Year Forecast Period in

Transportation Plans

Commenters, including AASHTO,

ITE, Virginia DOT, Texas DOT,

Washington DOT, and Kansas DOT

supported a clarification which

reiterates that transportation plans must

be for a 20-year minimum forecast

period at the time of plan adoption.

Further, the Capital District

Transportation Authority, the Regional

Transit Agency in Denver, the Central

Puget Sound Regional Transit Agency,

the Texas Natural Resources

Conservation Commission, the

Lackawanna County Regional Planning

Commission and others felt that so long

as metropolitan TIP updates and

amendments (required every two years)

are consistent with the metropolitan

plan, then, a metropolitan plan update

with a new 20-year forecast period

should not be required. The STIP

amendments and updates (also required

every two years) would be governed by

the State plan and its unique update

schedule.

Transportation Conformity Related

Issues

There are several issues related to the

EPA conformity regulation in 40 CFR

parts 51 and 93 that could be addressed

in the revised planning regulations.

These issues relate to clarifying

requirements and definitions, and could

lead to better integration of

transportation and air quality planning,

a principal objective of the EPA’s

regulation. These include:

1. Consistency between metropolitan

plan update cycle and the point at

which a conformity determination is

required.

During the outreach process, and in

many of the comments to the Options

Paper, stakeholders indicated that they

interpret the three-year clock for a plan

(and required conformity analysis) as

starting from the date the MPO approves

the metropolitan plan. Agencies,

including the Utah DOT, the New York

DOT, and others commented that this

provides certainty about the exact time

frame in which the plan needs to be

updated and that this is the preferred

approach to clarifying this issue.

In nonattainment and maintenance

areas, however, this approach is

complicated by required MPO and

Federal conformity findings. The

AASHTO, and the Virginia DOT

supported making the effective date of

the plan the date of the Federal

conformity finding. The AMPO

indicated that it has no certainty as to

when the FHWA and the FTA will

approve a conformity determination on

a metropolitan plan and thus, tying the

effective date of the plan to an approval

over which they feel they have no

control does not, in its view, facilitate

the planning process.

2. Transportation Control Measures

(TCMs) in State Implementation Plans

(SIPs).

Stakeholders, including the Bicycle

Federation of America, the AASHTO,

and the AMPO, observed that TCMs, for

which Federal funding or approvals are

required, must meet the TEA–21

planning requirements (i.e., come from

a conforming and financially

constrained transportation plan and

TIP) and that attempting to circumvent

this process, in order to place these

measures in SIPs, undermines the

transportation planning process.

3. Definitions: TIP Amendments,

Conformity Lapse, TIP Extensions.

The FHWA and the FTA have

considered clarifying ambiguous terms

used in the ISTEA and the EPA’s

conformity regulation 40 CFR parts 51

and 93. The New Jersey DOT, the

AMPO, the Utah DOT, the Texas

Natural Resources Conservation

Commission, the Wisconsin DOT, and

the DRCOG have endorsed the concept

of clarification of definitions and terms

and want an opportunity to comment on

proposed definitions.

Cross Cutting Issues

There are a number of options for

implementing the cross-cutting

planning and environmental provisions

of the TEA–21. Both regulatory and nonregulatory approaches were suggested to

us. The concepts discussed in the

proposed rule have been coordinated

with other administrations within the

DOT and with other Federal agencies.

A. Public Involvement

Some State and local agencies have

expressed interest in ways to integrate

the public involvement process related

to plan and TIP development with

public involvement process related to

the project development. Several

stakeholder groups have noted the

difficulties in getting public input on

long-range plans and TIPs and the

tendency for the public to be more

inclined to participate in projectspecific opportunities for input. They

indicated that this tends to frustrate the

public involvement efforts of State and

MPO planners to obtain input on longrange transportation plans. During the

public outreach process, we sought

input in this area, as well as examples

of successful techniques and approaches

to engage the public on both projectlevel proposals and long-range plans

and TIPs.

Comments from stakeholders were

varied. However, there were a

substantial number of comments that

preferred the following two-fold

approach: retaining the public

involvement approach included in the

planning regulation and modifying the

NEPA regulation public involvement

requirements to make our procedures

the same (based on the FHWA, rather

than the FTA, approach). This, they

suggest, would allow States and MPOs

to design processes that work best given

local conditions and needs, yet would

simplify the NEPA public involvement

process by consolidating the FHWA and

the FTA processes into one.

In arguments supporting this option,

a considerable number of commenters,

including State DOTs in Montana,

Washington, New Jersey, Idaho,

Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota,

and the AASHTO, pointed out

distinctions between the type of public

involvement that must occur in the

planning process and that which is

sought in the NEPA process. They point

out that these two processes, tailored

according to each need, can serve two

different purposes and can work

without conflict.

There were a number of comments on

whether freight interests and

representatives of transit users should

be represented with voting membership

on MPO boards. These commenters,

including the NACE, all opposed this

idea and observed that putting persons

representing particular interests on

voting boards with elected officials

would dilute the representation of duly

elected officials. Yet, the Bicycle

Federation of America supported

putting representatives of bicyclists and

pedestrians on voting boards of MPOs to

ensure that they have an opportunity to

comment on transportation plans and

programs. The Texas Natural Resources

Conservation Commission, the Orange

County Transportation Authority, the

Arkansas DOT, and the Minnesota DOT

supported a consistent approach to

public involvement for both planning

activities and the NEPA project

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33927

development activities and suggested

basing this approach on the current

FHWA NEPA regulation (23 CFR part

771). The EPA suggested that the DOT

needs to assist community leaders,

MPOs, and the public in establishing

performance goals and local

accountability for public participation.

B. Environmental Justice and Equity

There were a considerable number of

commenters, including the AASHTO

and many State DOTs, that opposed any

suggestion that equity in the

distribution of resources should be a

factor used to assess whether

environmental justice issues are being

adequately addressed. These comments

ranged from claims that such language,

if included in regulation, would

contradict the hard-fought TEA–21

provisions on the allocation of

transportation funds to claims that such

language would result in preempting

States and MPOs from selecting the

transportation projects and programs in

their respective jurisdictions. Deep

concern about this option and

opposition to this approach was

widespread and shared by MPOs and

transit agencies who feel that geographic

sub-allocation of funding based on

demographics is short-sighted, and an

inappropriate way to ensure the

principles of environmental justice are

honored.

Many commenters indicated that they

believe the Executive Order 12898, Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public

Law 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, as amended,

and current NEPA requirements are

sufficient to ensure that environmental

justice concerns are addressed. The New

Jersey DOT noted that benefits that

accrue to users of investments should be

a consideration in planning, and that

this could possibly be measured in

terms of mobility.

The Fulton County and Georgia

Department of Environment and

Community Development focused on

the composition of appointed officials

on regional authorities. This agency

suggested that such authorities or

decision making bodies should reflect

the demographics of the region. This

agency also suggested that all elements

of the population affected by a

particular decision should be sought out

for their input. In addition, this

commenter suggested that controversial

project decisions should be analyzed to

ensure that they conform to the

Environmental Justice Presidential

Executive Order. Finally, the

commenter suggested that all decisions

should be analyzed to ensure that no

particular geographic sub-area is being

over-burdened with adverse conditions

resulting from transportation

investments.

The U.S. Forest Service pointed out

that lumping environmental justice and

equity together is, in its view, a mistake.

It suggested that the best option for

public involvement, especially on issues

concerning environmental justice,

would be those procedures that

incorporate collaboration processes

early and often in the process.

One agency made the case that we

should consider requiring

environmental justice analyses of plans,

programs and processes, and of major

projects. The commenting agency

suggested that we could adopt a set of

requirements for recipients of our

funding. Requirements would include:

(1) Community group or nonprofit

organization inclusion as equal and full

partners in proposed projects; (2)

applications for funding include

community input in project

development; and (3) external reviewers

would make project selection decisions.

C. Elimination of Major Investment

Study as Separate Requirement

Section 1308 of the TEA–21

eliminates the major investment study

(MIS), described in 23 CFR 450.318, as

a separate requirement and calls for

integration of the MIS, as appropriate,

into the planning and NEPA analyses

required under 23 CFR parts 450 and

771. Proponents supporting this

legislative action cited instances where

major investment studies were said to

duplicate NEPA requirements, were

time consuming and costly, and

importantly, that results were not

usefully integrated into the project

development activities under NEPA.

The Options Paper articulated four

general concepts (distilled from earlier

stakeholder comments) focusing on

strengthening the linkage between

systems planning and project

development. We thought this would

facilitate broader consideration of

transportation system development

although, in some cases, commenters

had other views as discussed below.

In all of the options, the intent was to

faithfully implement the TEA–21

provision that exempts plans and

programs from consideration under

NEPA. The MPOs would not be required

to conduct NEPA analyses on plans.

However, they could more effectively

utilize the analyses conducted during

planning activities to facilitate

compliance with NEPA requirements at

a project level. If an MPO, as part of its

planning process, chose to conduct a

NEPA analysis on a plan, it would be a

permissible, voluntary decision. In

addition to the four options presented

for input, the Options Paper included a

number of questions to solicit a better

understanding of stakeholders’ needs

and concerns.

There were a wide range of comments

on the elimination of the MIS and on

the options presented. The AASHTO

felt that we should restrict regulatory

language and allow States and MPOs to

integrate the principles of the MIS, as

appropriate, into planning and

programming activities at their

discretion. The AMPO suggested that

we should allow States the flexibility to

do the NEPA analysis in the planning

process, as an option, but not as a

requirement. In fact, many stakeholders

were firmly opposed to any regulatory

language integrating NEPA requirements

into the planning process.

Most of the commenters supported

better linkages between planning and

project development and many

commenters, including the Minnesota

DOT, supported the development of

purpose and need during planning

studies and sub-regional analysis, but

only with the proviso that resource

agencies and others allow the use of this

information in the NEPA process. On

the other hand, the Virginia DOT, for

example, was opposed to developing

project purpose and need during

planning if there is a lack of

participation of resource agencies and

other parties to the NEPA process who

could then require that analysis be

redone or revisited during the formal

NEPA process. There was near

unanimous support for streamlining

through reducing duplicative

requirements and practices, such as,

revisiting issues during project

development that were, in commenters

views, fully explored during planning.

Many commenters supported options

that offer the most flexibility to States

and MPOs. The Florida DOT suggested

blending the two most flexible options

and developing regulatory language that

ensures the principles of MIS not

already addressed by other Federal

regulations and statutes are included in

the metropolitan planning and

programming requirements. They also

suggested that the planning regulation

should include requirements for

proactive agency coordination and

public involvement, collaborative and

multi-modal planning analysis of

alternatives, and financial capacity

analysis of alternatives. The Florida

DOT also felt that the States should take

the lead on these processes.

The City of Irvine, Texas, suggested

that the MIS process served as a good

check on the system planning process

and was a good way to build consensus

and gain public input. Its traffic and

33928 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

transportation director suggested that

expanding the purpose and need

statement would help narrow down

alternatives prior to the NEPA process.

The same individual also suggested

looking at the entire process to identify

what environmental information could

be both practical and useful at each

level of analysis.

Additionally, and echoing earlier

comments, stakeholders felt that the key

to success in whatever approach is

taken or required in regulation, is that

Federal agencies participate early in the

process and that they stay involved

throughout the development of, and

elimination of, alternatives. Consistent

with this suggestion, the EPA

commented that the only way they

would give standing to previously

conducted planning analyses during the

NEPA project development stage is if

there had been full opportunity for

consultation in the metropolitan

planning process, and if the resource

agencies had ‘‘confidence that those

plans were developed with

environmentally desirable alternatives

being considered.’’

D. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts

The Options Paper presented two

scenarios which would help promote

the consideration and evaluation of the

cumulative and indirect effects of

projects at a regional or large subregional scale, rather than on a projectby-project basis. In metropolitan areas,

the former MIS requirement provided an

opportunity for appropriate

consideration of such effects across a

sub-regional area where major, multiple

transportation actions might be needed.

With the elimination of the separate

MIS requirement, the most logical venue

for the consideration of such effects may

be in the systems planning processes

that support the development of

metropolitan or statewide transportation

plans.

One approach to implementing

cumulative and secondary impact

consideration would require an

appropriate evaluation of these effects

in a regional or sub-regional analysis,

thus obviating the need for repetitious,

project-by-project review. Such an

approach might also provide an

opportunity for more effective and

efficient mitigation of cumulative

impacts and the enhancement of

adversely affected resources. Another

possibility is to rely on a systems

planning analysis of cumulative and

indirect effects. In the absence of a

robust planning-level review of these

impacts, the project-by-project review as

part of each NEPA evaluation would be

required.

Some commenters, including the

AASHTO and the Bicycle Federation of

America, interpreted the first option as

a requirement for enhancement projects

whenever there are cumulative or

indirect effects identified. A large

number of commenters opposed this

approach, but for two different reasons.

The Bicycle Federation of America felt

that using transportation enhancement

funding to counterbalance the adverse

impacts of projects is unacceptable and

that such mitigation should be part of

the project cost and implementation

from the outset. Others, including State

DOTs in Utah, New York, and Virginia,

believed that a regional or subregional

analysis is unrealistic, excessively

costly, and of no value unless the study

results were accepted by State and

Federal environment and resource

agencies.

The Oregon DOT observed that the

appropriate level to consider cumulative

and indirect impacts is at a regional or

sub-regional planning level, but not as

an analysis per se; rather, as a plan to

preserve and enhance habitat and

preserve resources for future

generations. A few examples of plans

that accomplish this objective were

provided. The New Jersey DOT, Texas

DOT, and the American Road and

Transportation Builders Association

stated that the ‘‘science’’ for evaluating

the impacts is not available and that we

should provide funding, education, and

tools to assist MPOs and States to

develop the appropriate analysis tools.

Finally, the Lubbock and Byron

College Station MPOs (both from Texas)

indicated that cumulative and indirect

impacts are, and should be, adequately

addressed in consideration of the

planning factors and that additional

regulatory requirements are unnecessary

and redundant.

Distribution Table

For ease of reference, a distribution

table is provided for the current sections

and the proposed sections as follows:

Old section New section

450.100. .................................................................................................... 1410.100.

450.102. .................................................................................................... 1410.102.

450.104. .................................................................................................... 1410.104.

Definitions .......................................................................................... Definitions.

None ........................................................................................... Conformity lapse.

None ........................................................................................... Conformity rule.

Management System .................................................................. Congestion management system [Revised].

Consultation ................................................................................ Consultation [Revised].

Cooperation ................................................................................ Cooperation [Revised].

Coordination ............................................................................... Coordination [Revised].

None ........................................................................................... Design concept.

None ........................................................................................... Design scope.

None ........................................................................................... Federally funded non-emergency transportation services.

None ........................................................................................... Financial estimate.

None ........................................................................................... Freight shipper.

None ........................................................................................... Illustrative project.

None ........................................................................................... Indian tribal government.

None ........................................................................................... Interim Plan.

None ........................................................................................... Interim Transportation Improvement Program.

None ........................................................................................... ITS integration strategy.

Maintenance area ....................................................................... Maintenance area [Revised].

None ........................................................................................... Management and operation.

Metropolitan planning area ......................................................... Metropolitan planning area.

Metropolitan planning organization ............................................ Metropolitan planning organization.

Metropolitan transportation plan ................................................. Metropolitan transportation plan.

Nonattainment area .................................................................... Nonattainment area.

None ........................................................................................... Non-metropolitan local official.

None ........................................................................................... Plan update.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33929

Old section New section

None ........................................................................................... Provider of freight transportation services.

None ........................................................................................... Purpose and need.

Regionally significant project ...................................................... Regionally significant project [Revised].

State ........................................................................................... State.

State implementation plan .......................................................... State implementation plan.

Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) ............. Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).

None ........................................................................................... Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) extension.

Statewide transportation plan ..................................................... Statewide transportation plan.

None ........................................................................................... TIP update.

None ........................................................................................... Transportation control measures.

Transportation improvement program ........................................ Transportation improvement program [Revised].

Transportation management area .............................................. Transportation management area.

Transportation plan update ........................................................ Transportation plan update.

None ........................................................................................... Twenty year planning horizon.

None ........................................................................................... Urbanized area.

None ........................................................................................... User of public transit.

450.200 ..................................................................................................... 1410.200.

450.202 ..................................................................................................... 1410.202.

450.204 ..................................................................................................... 1410.204.

450.206(a)(1) ............................................................................................ Removed.

450.206(a)(2) through (a)(5) ..................................................................... 1410.206(a)(1) through (a)(4).

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.206(a)(5)[Added].

450.206(b) ................................................................................................. Removed

450.208(a) ................................................................................................. 1410.208(a) [Revised].

450.208(b) ................................................................................................. 1410.208(b) [Revised].

450.210(a) ................................................................................................. 1410.210(a) [Revised].

450.210(b) ................................................................................................. 1410.210(e) [Revised].

450.212(a) through (f) ............................................................................... 1410.212(b) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.212(c) [Added].

450.212(g) ................................................................................................. 1410.212(e).

450.214 ..................................................................................................... 1410.214 [Revised].

450.216(a) introductory paragraph ........................................................... 1410.216(a).

450.216(a)(1) through (a)(7) ..................................................................... 1410.216(c)(1) through (c)(7).

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.216(c)(8).

450.216(a)(8) ............................................................................................ 1410.216(c)(9).

450.216(a)(9) ............................................................................................ 1410.216(c)(10).

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.216(b) [Added].

450.216(b) ................................................................................................. 1410.216(d).

450.216(c) ................................................................................................. 1410.216(e) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.216(f) [Added].

450.216(d) ................................................................................................. 1410.216(g) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.218 [Added].

450.218 ..................................................................................................... 1410.220 [Revised].

450.220(a) introductory paragraph ........................................................... 1410.222(a) introductory paragraph.

450.220(a)(1) ............................................................................................ 1410.222(a)(1) [Revised].

450.220(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 1410.222(a)(2) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.222(a)(3) through (a)(6) [Added].

450.220(a)(3) ............................................................................................ Removed.

450.220(a)(4) ............................................................................................ 1410.222(a)(7).

450.220(a)(5) ............................................................................................ 1410.222(a)(8).

450.220(a)(6) ............................................................................................ 1410.222(a)(9).

None .......................................................................................................... 1410(a)(10) [Added].

450.220(b) and (c) .................................................................................... 1410.222(b) [Revised].

450.220(d) ................................................................................................. 1410.222(c) [Revised].

450.220(e) ................................................................................................. 1410.222(b)(3) [Revised].

450.220(f) .................................................................................................. 1410.222(d).

450.220(g) ................................................................................................. 1410.222(e).

450.222(a) through (d) .............................................................................. 1410.224(a) through (d) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.224(e) [Added].

450.224 ..................................................................................................... Removed.

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.226 [Added].

450.300 ..................................................................................................... 1410.300 [Revised].

450.302 ..................................................................................................... 1410.302 [Revised].

450.304 ..................................................................................................... 1410.304 [Revised].

450.306(a) ................................................................................................. 1410.306(a) [Revised].

450.306(b) and (c) .................................................................................... 1410.306(b) and (c) [Revised].

450.306(d) and (g) .................................................................................... 1410.306(f) [Revised].

450.306(e) ................................................................................................. 1410.306(d).

450.306(f) .................................................................................................. 1410.306(e).

450.306(h) through (k) .............................................................................. 1410.306(g) through (j) [Revised].

450.308(a) through (d) .............................................................................. 1410.308(a) through (d) [Revised].

450.308(e) ................................................................................................. 1410.308(e) [Added].

450.310(a) ................................................................................................. 1410.310(a) [Revised].

33930 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Old section New section

450.310(b) ................................................................................................. Removed.

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.310(b) [Added].

450.310(c) ................................................................................................. 1410.310(c) [Revised].

450.310(d) ................................................................................................. 1410.310(h) [Revised].

450.310(e) ................................................................................................. 1410.310(d) [Revised].

450.310(f) .................................................................................................. 1410.310(e) [Revised].

450.310(g) ................................................................................................. 1410.310(f).

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.310(g) [Added].

450.310(h) ................................................................................................. 1410.310(i).

450.312(a) ................................................................................................. 1410.312(a) [Revised].

450.312(b) ................................................................................................. 1410.312(b).

450.312(c) ................................................................................................. 1410.312(c) [Revised].

450.312(d) ................................................................................................. 1410.312(d).

450.312(e) through (i) ............................................................................... 1410.312(e) through (i) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.312(j) [Added].

450.314(a), (b) and (d) ............................................................................. 1410.314(a), (b) and (c) [Revised].

450.314(c) ................................................................................................. Removed

450.316(a) ................................................................................................. 1410.316(a) [Revised].

450.316(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 1410.316(b) [Revised].

450.316(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 1410.316(c) [Revised].

450.316(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 1410.316(d) [Revised].

450.316(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 1410.316(e) [Revised].

450.316(b)(5) ............................................................................................ 1410.316(f) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.316(g) [Added].

450.316(c) ................................................................................................. 1410.316(h) [Revised].

450.316(d) ................................................................................................. 1410.316(i).

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.316(j) [Added].

450.318 ..................................................................................................... 1410.318 [Revised].

450.320(a) ................................................................................................. Removed.

450.320(b), (c) and (d) .............................................................................. 1410.320(a), (b) and (c) [Revised].

450.322(a) ................................................................................................. 1410.322(a) [Revised].

450.322(b)(1) through (b)(7) ..................................................................... 1410.322(b)(1) through (b)(7) [Revised].

450.322(b)(8) ............................................................................................ Removed.

450.322(b)(9) through (b)(11) ................................................................... 1410.322(b)(8) through (b)(10) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.322(b)(11) [Added].

450.322(c) and (d) .................................................................................... 1410.322(c) and (d) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.322(e) [Added].

450.322(e) ................................................................................................. 1410.322(f).

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.322(g) [Added].

450.324(a) through (e) .............................................................................. 1410.324(a) through (e) [Revised].

450.324(f)(1) through (f)(3) ....................................................................... 1410.324(f)(1) through (f)(3) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.324(f)(4) [Added].

450.324(f)(4) and (f)(5) ............................................................................. 1410.324(f)(5) and (f)(6) [Revised].

450.324(g) through (o) .............................................................................. 1410.324(g) through (o) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.324(p) [Added].

450.326 ..................................................................................................... 1410.326 [Revised].

450.328 ..................................................................................................... 1410.328 [Revised].

450.330(a) and (b) .................................................................................... 1410.330(a) and (b) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.330(c) [Added].

450.332(a) ................................................................................................. 1410.332(b) [Revised].

450.332(b) ................................................................................................. 1410.332(c) [Revised].

450.332(c) ................................................................................................. 1410.332(a) [Revised].

450.332(d) and (e) .................................................................................... 1410.332(d) and (e).

450.334(a)(1) through (a)(5) ..................................................................... 1410.334(a)(1) through (a)(5) [Revised].

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.334(a)(6) through (a)(8) [Added].

450.334(b) through (f) ............................................................................... 1410.334(b) through (f) [Revised].

450.334(g) ................................................................................................. Removed.

None .......................................................................................................... 1410.334(g) [Added].

450.334(h) ................................................................................................. 1410.334(h) [Revised].

450.336 ..................................................................................................... Removed.

Section-by-Section Discussion

Section 1410.100 Purpose

Current § 450.100 would be

redesignated as § 1410.100 and a

technical correction would be made for

a legislative citation.

Section 1410.102 Applicability

Current § 450.102 would be

redesignated as § 1410.102. The text of

this section is unchanged.

Section 1410.104 Definitions

Current § 450.104 would be

redesignated as § 1410.104. The

definition of ‘‘conformity lapse’’ and

‘‘transportation control measure’’ would

be added and would have the meaning

given it in the EPA conformity

regulation provided at 40 CFR 93.101, as

follows:

The term ‘‘lapse’’ means that the

conformity determination for a

transportation plan or TIP has expired,

and thus there is no currently

conforming transportation plan and TIP.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33931

The term ‘‘congestion management

system’’ would replace the previous

definition of ‘‘management system’’ and

would have the meaning given in the

management system rule (23 CFR part

500).

The term ‘‘consultation’’ would have

minor wording changes, but no

substantive changes.

The word ‘‘programming’’ would be

dropped from the definition of

‘‘coordination’’ to reflect the fact that

programming is a subset of the planning

process. The project development

processes reference would be added to

reflect the provisions of proposed

§ 1410.318.

Definitions are proposed for ‘‘design

concept,’’ ‘‘design scope,’’ ‘‘federally

funded non-emergency transportation

services,’’ ‘‘financial estimate,’’ and

‘‘freight shipper’’ for clarification of

legislative terminology.

The term ‘‘Governor’’ remains the

same.

The terms ‘‘illustrative project’’ and

‘‘ITS integration strategy’’ would be

added to reflect new legislative

provisions. The term ‘‘Indian Tribal

Government’’ is added for clarification.

The terms ‘‘Interim Plan’’ and

‘‘Interim Transportation Improvement

Program’’ are added to clarify the basis

for advancing exempt and existing and

new TCM projects during a conformity

lapse. Interim plans and TIPs must be

developed in a manner consistent with

23 U.S.C. 134. They must be based on

previous planning assumptions and

goals; appropriately adjusted for

currently available projections for

population growth, economic activity

and other relevant data. The public

must be involved consistent with the

regular transportation plan and program

development processes. Financial

planning and constraint, and, as

appropriate, congestion management

systems requirements must be satisfied,

and interim TIPs must be approved by

the MPO and the Governor.’’

The term ‘‘maintenance area’’ would

be revised to reflect the EPA definition

used in the conformity regulation at 40

CFR parts 51 and 93.

A definition is proposed for

‘‘management and operation’’ to reflect

the new legislative policy direction from

the TEA–21.

The terms ‘‘metropolitan planning

area,’’ ‘‘metropolitan planning

organization,’’ ‘‘metropolitan

transportation plan,’’ and

‘‘nonattainment area’’ would remain

unchanged, except for legislative

references.

A definition of ‘‘non-metropolitan

local official’’ would be added to reflect

the provisions of the TEA-21 regarding

consultation between the State and

these officials.

The terms ‘‘plan update,’’ ‘‘provider

of freight services,’’ and ‘‘purpose and

need’’ would be added to provide

clarification of terminology.

The definition of ‘‘regionally

significant’’ reflects the US EPA

conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and

93).

The terms ‘‘State,’’ ‘‘State

implementation plan,’’ ‘‘statewide

transportation plan,’’ and ‘‘statewide

transportation improvement program’’

would be unchanged.

A definition for ‘‘statewide

transportation improvement program

extension’’ would be added for

clarification.

The term ‘‘transportation

improvement program’’ would be

revised slightly. The term ‘‘TIP update’’

would be added to provide information

and direction on when a TIP must be

updated . Anytime a non-exempt project

is added to a TIP, the TIP must be

updated. In attainment areas, the TIP

must be updated whenever a regionally

significant project is added to the TIP.

The definition of ‘‘transportation

management area’’ would be

unchanged. The terms ‘‘twenty year

planning horizon, ‘‘urbanized area,’’ and

‘‘user of public transit’’ would be added

to clarify legislative terminology.

Subpart B—Statewide Planning and

Programming

Section 1410.200 Purpose of

Regulations

Current § 450.200 would be

redesignated as § 1410.200. The

statement of purpose would be

amplified by reflecting the declaration

of purpose articulated in the TEA–21.

This amplification also supports greater

consistency of purpose between

metropolitan and statewide planning.

Section 1410.202 Applicability of

Regulation

Current § 450.202 would be

redesignated as § 1410.202. The text

would be revised to add ‘‘project

sponsors’’ as agencies affected by the

provisions of this section.

Section 1410.204 Definitions

Current § 450.204 would be

redesignated as § 1410.204. This section

would remain the same.

Section 1410.206 Statewide

Transportation Planning Process: Basic

Requirements

Current § 450.206 would be

redesignated as § 1410.206.

A new § 1410.206(a)(5) would be

added. This section articulates the need

for the State to develop and implement

a process for demonstrating the

consistency of plans and programs with

the provisions of Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and related

legislation. We believe that such

processes are already in place and that

the clarification of minimum required

information and analysis would benefit

States and other agencies in meeting the

existing requirement in the selfcertification statement included in the

STIP.

Current § 450.206(b) would be

eliminated since it is redundant with

§ 450.210(a).

Section 1410.208 Consideration of

Statewide Transportation Planning

Factors

Current § 450.208 would be

redesignated as § 1410.208. Paragraph

(a) would be revised by substituting the

seven planning factors identified in the

TEA–21 for those previously identified

by the ISTEA. All parenthetical

amplification has been deleted and the

wording is that used by the statute. We

plan to issue guidance regarding

interpretation and application of the

planning factors. We welcome

suggestions on exemplary State and

MPO procedures already in place or

under development, and how those

might be replicated in other State or

MPO planning processes. We also

recognize that it will take some time to

develop syntheses of current practices

and other tools. However, we will work

with States, MPOs, and others to ensure

that tools and examples are made

available in a timely manner.

We are proposing to revise paragraph

(b) to focus on other considerations that

the TEA–21 states should be addressed

in the planning process. Specifically,

the concerns of non-metropolitan local

officials and Indian Tribal Governments

and Federal land managing agencies are

spelled out as a source of concerns that

shall be considered.

Section 1410.210 Coordination of

Planning Process Activities

Current § 450.210 would be

redesignated as § 1410.210. Reflecting

the simplification of language provided

by the change in planning factors,

paragraph (a) would be revised to focus

on required planning coordination

efforts. This general approach would

eliminate the need to spell out in detail

all of the specific coordination efforts

previously articulated. We believe that

the substance of coordination and the

process overall remain intact even

though the language is vastly simplified.

References to the air quality planning

process in § 1410.210(b) reflect the

33932 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

general role afforded the State

transportation planning agency in the

air quality planning process under 42

U.S.C. 7504 and the desirability of

ensuring coordination of the air quality

and transportation planning processes.

The current wording of paragraph (b)

would be retained as § 1410.210(e) with

the addition of ‘‘safety concerns’’ to the

list of issues to be coordinated.

Section 1410.212 Participation by

Interested Parties

Current § 450.212 would be

redesignated as § 1410.212. Overall,

current § 450.212 (public involvement)

would be broadened to focus on all

facets of participation in the statewide

planning process. For example, the

newly articulated provisions regarding

consultation with non-metropolitan

officials would be added to this section.

In addition, the paragraphs would be

redesignated.

Current §§ 450.212(a) through (f)

would become § 1410.212(b) and be

revised slightly to reflect increased

emphasis for public involvement by

minorities and low-income populations.

The listing of interested parties to be

afforded an opportunity to comment is

revised to reflect the addition of transit

users and freight service providers in

statute. This listing reflects the wording

of the statute. The FHWA and the FTA

believe that the phrase ‘‘and other

interested parties’’ reflects the intent of

Congress to ensure that all citizens and

groups are afforded an opportunity to

participate. Comments are solicited as to

whether there is a need to further

elaborate the listing so as to demonstrate

that the specific groups do not

constitute an exclusive list of

participants. A new § 1410.212(d)

would be added to encourage the

participation of state air quality and

other agencies in the transportation

planning process. The existing

§ 450.212(g) would become

§ 1410.212(e).

Section 1410.212(b)(2)(vii) makes

provision for a periodic evaluation of its

public involvement procedures by the

State. The FHWA and the FTA believe

that the assessment of such processes on

a routine basis ensures their

effectiveness and enhances continued

improvement. The FHWA and the FTA

also believe that the effectiveness of

public involvement processes can be

strengthened through the voluntary

development of criteria on which to

assess performance by States and MPOs.

Where such criteria have been

developed by the planning partners, the

FHWA and the FTA will consider them

in their certification reviews and

planning findings, in addition to the

generally applicable requirements for

public involvement processes under

§ 1410.212(b)(2) and § 1410.316(b).

A new § 1410.212(c) focusing on

participation by Federal agencies and

Indian Tribal Governments would be

added to support early involvement by

these agencies and governments. Such

involvement will facilitate streamlining

of environmental decisions and ensure

adequate consideration of key interests

and viewpoints. The proposed wording

for the involvement of Indian Tribal

Governments reflects current

deliberations within the Executive

Branch regarding ways to more fully

inform and engage Indian Tribal

Governments in Federal decision

making processes.

Section 1410.214 Content and

Development of Statewide

Transportation Plan

Current § 450.214 would be

redesignated as § 1410.214. Two new

sections would be added to reflect

legislative changes. Proposed

§ 1410.214(a)(3) would reflect the

intelligent transportation system

consistency requirement provided

under section 5206(e) of the TEA–21. A

separate rulemaking process will

address the overall policy and

procedures for architecture consistency.

The wording reflects that portion of the

consistency process that would be

started in the statewide planning

process for non-metropolitan area

projects. We are interested in comments

and observations regarding the

feasibility of this process. In our view,

the basic structure would reflect the

activities normally conducted during

transportation plan development.

Proposed minor information collection

additions to reflect utilization of

electronic information sharing do not

appear to be a major burden addition for

planning.

In addition, proposed § 1410.214(d)

would implement a provision, added by

TEA–21, for an optional financial plan

for statewide transportation plans. The

TEA–21 did not impose a new

requirement on the States. Rather, it

offers up the option of a financial plan

if decided upon by the statewide

planning process participants. This

section would spell out how this option

would be approached through a

statewide planning process.

Section 1410.216 Content and

Development of Statewide

Transportation Improvement Program

Current § 450.216 would be

redesignated as § 1410.216. The

provisions of former § 450.216(a)(1)

through (a)(9) would be redesignated

and revised as § 1410.216(c) providing

detailed information on the STIP. A new

§ 1410.216(b) would spell out the need

to involve certain interests in the

development of the STIP. The parties

identified are the same as those

identified for the development of the

plan.

Regarding the detailed information

requested for projects identified in a

STIP in § 450.216(c), a new element

(§ 1410.216(c)(8)) regarding ITS projects

funded with highway trust funds would

be added. This section reiterates the

earlier planning level discussion and

would direct that projects meeting the

definition in § 1410.322(b)(11) would be

included in a regional architecture as

indicated in the rulemaking on ITS

architecture consistency.

The new wording proposed in

§ 1410.216(f) articulates the legislative

provision of an optional financial plan

for STIPs.

Section 1410.218 Relation of Planning

and Project Development Processes

A new § 1410.218 would address an

optional approach to linking statewide

planning and project development

processes in non-metropolitan areas. It

mirrors proposed § 1410.318 which

would apply to the metropolitan

planning process. The intent of this

section is to provide States with an

option to more effectively rely on

planning processes as a foundation for

subsequent environmental and other

project level analyses. Nothing in this

section would mandate that a State

adopt the option provided. If a State

chose to take advantage of the option,

the language lays out a framework to

support the State’s actions. This section

also would make clear that project level

actions shall be consistent with the

State plan and program (see proposed

§ 1410.218(e)). For further information,

please see the preamble section related

to metropolitan planning, proposed

§ 1410.318.

Section 1410.220 Funding of Planning

Process

The content of the current § 450.218

would be moved here with changes

made to the references and the section

heading.

Section 1410.222 Approvals, Selfcertification and Findings

Current § 450.220 would be

redesignated as § 1410.222. Current

§ 450.220(a)(2) would be revised

slightly. Proposed § 1410.222(a)(3)

through (a)(5) would articulate the

existing legislative and regulatory

authorities. Subsequent paragraphs

would be redesignated and remain

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33933

generally unchanged. A new

§ 1410.222(a)(10) would be added.

We are proposing to modify existing

§ 450.220(b) slightly to indicate the

relationship of the planning finding to

self-certifications by the State. In

addition, current language provided at

§ 450.220(c) would be redesignated and

combined with a new § 1410.222(b) to

clarify the relationship of findings with

possible Federal actions.

Proposed § 1410.222(c) that details

the approval period for a STIP would

modify the text of current § 450.220(d).

STIP extensions (and by their inclusion,

TIP extensions) would be limited to 180

days. Further, no STIP extension would

be granted in nonattainment and

maintenance areas. We believe that this

policy eliminates substantial confusion

regarding application of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) conformity provisions in

nonattainment and maintenance areas.

We also believe that the focus should be

on ensuring regular STIP updates, rather

than finding a way to maintain funding

flows that may conflict with the

provisions of the CAA. The overall limit

on extensions serves the same general

purpose for attainment areas of ensuring

that updates are accomplished rather

than continuing to rely on out of date

documents.

Section 1410.224 Project Selection

Current § 450.222 would be

redesignated as § 1410.224 and the

references to funding categories

updated. Generally, however, it would

remain unchanged. Proposed new

paragraph (e) would provide the option

for expedited procedures where agreed

to by the planning participants. The

current topic of this section (§ 450.224

phase-in requirements) would be

eliminated.

Section 1410.226 Applicability of

NEPA to Transportation Planning and

Programming

This section simply proposes to

restate the provisions of the TEA–21

which direct that decisions by the

Secretary regarding plans and programs

are not Federal actions subject to the

provisions of the NEPA.

Subpart C—Metropolitan

Transportation Planning and

Programming

Section 1410.300 Purpose of Planning

Process

Current § 450.300 would be

redesignated as § 1410.300. This

statement would remain essentially

unchanged. The exceptions are a minor

wording change for clarity of Federal

expectations with regard to plan content

and the addition of the word

‘‘management’’ to reflect the revised

declaration of policy in 23 U.S.C. 134(a)

as revised by the TEA–21.

Section 1410.302 Organizations and

Processes Affected by Planning

Requirements

Current § 450.302 would be

redesignated as § 1410.302. The

principal change would be to add

organizations charged with ‘‘project

development’’ in metropolitan areas to

the affected organizations. This would

reflect the general emphasis of the

revised rule on more efficiently and

effectively linking planning and project

development as a means to streamlining

decision making and towards ensuring

that projects are based on the planning

process. The statutory authorizing

language reference would be added also.

Section 1410.304 Definitions

Current § 450.304 would be

redesignated as § 1410.304. This section

would remain unchanged with the

exception of referencing definitions in

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.

Section 1410.306 What is a

Metropolitan Planning Organization

and How Is It Created

Current § 450.306 would be

redesignated as § 1410.306. Minor

changes are proposed for existing

§ 450.306(a) to provide clarity regarding

the designation of multiple MPOs

serving a single metropolitan area. The

wording would more clearly emphasize

a preference for not designating more

than one MPO in metropolitan areas.

We believe that this is consistent with

the intent of legislative language

changes and the principles of

comprehensive transportation planning

for metropolitan areas.

Current §§ 450.306(b) and (c) would

remain unchanged. Current § 450.306(d)

and (g) would be combined and

redesignated as § 1410.306(f),

§ 450.306(e) would be redesignated as

§ 1410.306(d) and § 450.306(f) would be

redesignated as § 1410.306(e). Editing

for clarity of intent would simplify the

language. Current § 450.306(e) would be

redesignated as § 1410.306(d). Sections

450.306(h) through (k) would be

redesignated as §§ 1410.306 (g) through

(j), respectively, and revised.

Section 1410.308 Establishing the

Geographic Boundaries for Metropolitan

Transportation Planning Areas.

Current § 450.308 would be

redesignated as § 1410.308. Revisions

made by the TEA–21 to 23 U.S.C. 134

require the modification of existing

§ 450.308, which also would be edited

for clarification of language. Boundaries

in effect as of June 9, 1998, the date of

presidential signature for the TEA–21,

would remain in effect unless modified

by the policy board of the MPO in

cooperation with the Governor. The

provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134, as modified

by the ISTEA, required planning area

boundaries to be extended to the limits

of the nonattainment area where that

area was larger than the transportation

planning area.

New MPOs designated after June 9,

1998, would have to take into account

the existence of non-attainment and

maintenance areas and reflect them as

agreed to by the Governor and local

officials in the proposed metropolitan

planning area boundaries.

In either case, the existing MPO or

new MPO, non-attainment and

maintenance areas left outside the

metropolitan planning areas would have

to be addressed in an agreement

between the State and the MPO as

proposed at paragraph § 1410.310(f).

The option of extending the

metropolitan planning area boundary to

the limits of the metropolitan statistical

area would be retained as provided in

the statute. This continuation and the

changes discussed in the preceding

paragraphs are captured in proposed

revisions included in § 1410.308(a).

The wording of current § 450.308(b)

would remain unchanged. The

provisions of current § 450.308(c) would

be slightly modified for clarification. No

changes are proposed for § 450.308(d).

A new § 1410.308(e) proposes to

address the expenditure of Surface

Transportation Program funds

attributable to a Transportation

Management Area (TMA). The intent of

the section is to more clearly state, what

has been the FHWA and the FTA policy

since 1992, that these funds cannot be

expended outside the boundaries of the

metropolitan area. They may be

expended anywhere inside the

metropolitan area including areas

outside the urbanized area.

Section 1410.310 Agreements Among

Organizations Involved in the Planning

Process

Current § 450.310 would be

redesignated as § 1410.310. Current

§ 450.310(a) would be retained in its

current form except for the elimination

of a reference to corridor and subarea

studies. A new proposed § 1410.310(b)

would state the overall relationship

between planning and project

development activities. This section

would support the option for

conducting project development

activities as planning activities under

the general relationship between

33934 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

planning and project development as

established under the proposed new

§ 1410.318.

Current § 450.310(c) would be

redesignated as § 1410.310(c) and the

text would remain unchanged except for

minor wording revisions for

clarification. Section 450.310(d) would

be redesignated as § 1410.310(h) and

revised for clarity. Current § 450.310(e)

would be revised by dropping the

reference to a definition of a prospectus

in § 450.104. A definition is not

required since the nature of prospectus

is well established in practice as a

statement of ongoing planning activities

that continue from year-to-year as a

foundation for producing transportation

plans and programs.

The current § 450.310(f) would be

redesignated as § 1410.310(e) and

modified slightly by a wording change

to support the revisions to the air

quality and transportation planning area

boundary relationship. The change is

intended to suggest that actions that

would leave portions of nonattainment

and maintenance areas outside a

metropolitan transportation planning

area, but contiguous to such an area,

should be addressed in consultation

with the FHWA, the FTA, and the EPA.

The decision to leave such areas outside

a metropolitan planning area is the

responsibility of the Governor and the

MPO acting cooperatively.

A proposed new § 1410.310(g) has

been added to reflect the impact of

section 5206(e) of the TEA–21. The

proposed section requires an agreement

among agencies planning and

implementing ITS projects and is

intended to ensure that the planning

and operating agencies specifically

agree on an approach to integrated ITS

implementation consistent with the

options provided in the National ITS

Architecture. This provision would

direct that this relationship should be

covered by agreement within the

metropolitan planning area and

addresses the policy and operational

issues affecting ITS implementation.

Where current agreements do not

already address these relationships, they

would be modified to reflect the

provisions of this section. Where

possible, existing agreements, per the

provisions of § 1410.310(i), would be

modified to incorporate the ITS

integration strategy required under

proposed § 1410.322(b)(11).

A new proposed § 1410.310(h) would

permit a single agreement for all

activities under § 1410.310 where

agreed to by the participants. The

wording in current § 450.310(h) remains

unchanged from its current text and

would be included in a redesignated

§ 1410.310(i).

Section 1410.312 Planning Process

Organizational Relationships

Current § 450.312 would be

redesignated as § 1410.312. Existing

§ 450.312(a) would be redesignated as

§ 1410.312(a) and modified in several

places to reflect wording changes in the

subsequent provisions of §§ 1410.314

through 1410.322. A phrase would be

made to reflect international border

planning with Canada and Mexico.

The text of current § 450.312(b) would

be redesignated as § 1410.312(b) and

remain unchanged.

The organization of current

§ 450.312(c) and some of the previous

content would be modified and

redesignated as § 1410.312(c). The

content modifications are intended to

clarify how MPO transportation

planning activities and planning

products are related to air quality

planning activities and products. Under

42 U.S.C. 7504, MPOs and State

transportation planning organizations

are expected to have a formal role in air

quality planning. At another level, the

transportation and air quality planning

processes would work more efficiently

if the responsible agencies were more

actively engaged in each other’s

processes. Hence, the proposed rule

would more explicitly direct MPOs to

participate in air quality planning

activities. We would expect that the air

quality planning agencies, under the

U.S. EPA’s conformity regulation (40

CFR parts 51 and 93), would be actively

engaged in the transportation planning

process. The development of

transportation control measures is

specifically revised to clarify that new

TCMs proposed for funding with FHWA

and/or FTA transportation funds or

requiring an FHWA or FTA approval

can occur during a conformity lapse, if

new TCMs are included in an interim

plan and interim TIP that satisfy the

provisions of this part and are approved

into a SIP with identified emission

reduction benefits (specified but not

necessarily credited in the applicable

SIP). The proposals herein implement

and clarify the planning regulations

consistent with the ‘‘National

Memorandum of Understanding

between the US Department of

Transportation and the US

Environmental Protection Agency,’’

which was signed on April 19, 2000.

This memorandum of understanding

outlines procedures for advancing new

TCMs during a conformity lapse.

Current § 450.312(d) would be

redesignated as § 1410.312(d) and

remain unchanged.

Minor wording changes would be

made to current § 450.312(e) [proposed

§ 1410.312(e)] to clarify required

coordination in circumstances where

more than one MPO is involved in

transportation planning for a contiguous

metropolitan area, including multi-state

areas.

Proposed § 1410.312(f) (current

§ 450.312(f)) would be revised for text

clarity. Proposed § 1410.312(g) (current

§ 450.312(g)) would be revised to

remove a specific reference to

cooperative development of the

congestion management system (CMS)

since it is incorporated in the

management system regulation provided

at 23 CFR part 500.

Current § 450.312(h) is redesignated

as § 1410.312(h) and revised. Proposed

§ 1410.312(i) (current § 450.312(i))

would be revised by replacing the words

‘‘involved appropriately’’ with

‘‘consulted’’ to more accurately reflect

the statutory intention.

A new § 1410.312(j) is proposed to

reflect the legislative changes of the

TEA–21 which added several new

discretionary grant programs. This

section asserts that the projects (other

than planning and research activities)

funded through these programs must be

addressed through the transportation

planning process and included, as

appropriate, in transportation plans and

programs. Planning and research

activities funded under the referenced

programs are addressed in the Unified

Planning Work Programs (UPWP) for

each metropolitan planning area.

Section 1410.314 Planning Tasks and

Work Program

Current § 450.314(a) would be

redesignated as § 1410.314(a). The

provisions of this overall section remain

largely unchanged except for wording

revisions for clarity or to reflect

modifications in other sections, e.g.,

elimination of the MIS proposed under

§ 1410.318. One change to § 450.314(a)

proposes to drop the reference to TMAs.

This is intended to suggest that all

MPOs have a responsibility to meet the

requirements of this section. It does not

prevent a smaller, attainment area MPO

from proposing a prospectus or a

simplified work program. Paragraph (c)

of current § 450.314 would be revised

and redesignated as § 1410.314(c). A

new paragraph (d) will be added as

§ 1410.314(d).

Section 1410.316 Transportation Plan

Development

Current § 450.316 would be

redesignated as § 1410.316. Overall this

section has extensive proposed

revisions for several reasons. The

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33935

metropolitan planning factors were

revised by the TEA–21; reduced in

number from 16 to 7. The wording in

§ 450.316(a) would be revised by

substituting the seven planning factors

identified in the TEA–21 for those

previously identified by the ISTEA. All

parenthetical amplification would be

removed and the wording would be the

same as that used in the statute. We

plan to issue guidance regarding

interpretation and application of the

planning factors. This will be especially

true of new planning goals, such as

safety, environmental considerations,

and operations and management, which

have been added to the list.

The US EPA has suggested that the

FTA and the FHWA amplify and

elaborate the detail in the regulation

regarding the meaning of the planning

factors. The agencies have kept the

language as stipulated in the statute.

However, the agencies believe that

substantial benefits can be realized by

States and MPOs in applying the

planning factors, under §§ 1410.214 and

1410.316(a), aggressively, most notably

in supporting the provisions of

§ 450.318 below. The planning factors

can serve as a key focal point for

developing plans and programs and

MPOs and States may develop specific

rationales to guide their utilization in

the plan development process. Indeed,

where States and MPOs choose to

develop their own performance criteria

to monitor the results of planning, they

may be well served by utilizing the

planning factors as a base for those

criteria. The FTA and the FHWA will

support efforts by States and MPOs to

utilize such criteria by addressing them

in Federal reviews and assessments. In

addition, the agencies will seek to

develop specific examples of how the

planning factors can support effective

plan development and environmental

streamlining. Streamlining, as an

activity to reduce project level burden

and delay, could be more readily

achieved if the planning process

provides an early consideration of the

planning factors.

The FHWA and the FTA welcome

suggestions on exemplary State and

MPO procedures or data collection

efforts already in place or under

development and how those might be

replicated in other State or MPO

planning processes. We are interested

also in specialized training efforts, e.g.,

safety, that may have been developed or

needed by States and MPOs. We also

recognize that it will take some time to

develop syntheses of current practices

and other tools. However, it is our intent

to work with States, MPOs, and others

to ensure that tools and examples are

made available in a timely manner.

The public involvement provisions

would be modified for clarity and

would reflect the provisions of

Presidential Executive Order 12898 on

Environmental Justice and

implementing DOT and FHWA orders.

Similar changes have been made

regarding references to compliance with

the provisions of Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. The organization of

§ 450.316 would be modified slightly to

reflect these changes and to provide

clarity in understanding them.

The listing of interested parties to be

afforded an opportunity to comment is

revised to reflect the addition of transit

users and freight service providers in

statute. This listing reflects the wording

of the statute. The FHWA and the FTA

believe that the phrase ‘‘and other

interested parties’’ reflects the intent of

Congress to ensure that all citizens and

groups are afforded an opportunity to

participate. Comments are solicited as to

whether there is a need to further

elaborate the listing so as to demonstrate

that the specific groups do not

constitute an exclusive list of

participants.

Section 1410.316(b)(9) makes

provision for a periodic evaluation of its

public involvement procedures by the

State. The FHWA and the FTA believe

that the assessment of such processes on

a routine basis ensures their

effectiveness and enhances continued

improvement. The FHWA and the FTA

also believe that the effectiveness of

public involvement processes can be

strengthened through the voluntary

development of criteria on which to

assess performance by States and MPOs.

Where such criteria have been

developed by the planning partners, the

FHWA and the FTA will consider them

in their certification reviews and

planning findings.

Relatively small scale modifications

to the public involvement provisions are

proposed as follows: (1) The provision

of timely information will be modified

to encourage engagement of the public

during the early stages of plan and TIP

development; (2) demonstration of

timely response to comments received

would be revised to highlight response

to input from minority and low-income

populations; and (3) periodic MPO

evaluations of public involvement

effectiveness would now include an

emphasis on the success obtained in

engaging minority and low-income

populations.

Current § 450.316(b)(2) is proposed to

be redesignated as § 1410.316(c).

Additional attention is drawn to the

provisions of Executive Order 12898

and implementing DOT and FHWA

orders. Specifically, data necessary for

the purposes of conducting planning

analyses for plan development are

identified as contributors to the

demonstration of compliance with the

Executive Order. We are required to

assure compliance with the Executive

Order and will rely on the data

identified under this section for that

purpose. In addition, the statutory and

regulatory requirements identified in

this section apply to State DOTs, MPOs,

and transit operators. Consequently,

additional data and analyses are

proposed as a basis for demonstrating

that plans and resulting programs will

be consistent with the referenced

statutory requirements. Additional

guidance will be issued to refine and

amplify the basic framework established

by these provisions. We believe,

however, that much of the proposed

data specification was previously

required for assertions of compliance

with Title VI and related statutory

authorities and, hence, should not

require a major new data collection

effort.

In addition to the revised

requirements of this section, the FHWA

and the FTA continue to encourage

attention to the selection of members of

boards and committees that represent

the demographic profile of the

metropolitan planning area served. The

ability to meet the needs of the

community is enhanced by efforts

designed to provide voice to as many

segments of its membership as possible.

The FHWA and the FTA solicit

comments regarding additional

strategies that may be effective in

serving the interests of inclusiveness in

transportation decision making.

Current §§ 450.316(b)(3) through

450.316(b)(5) would be redesignated as

§ 1410.316(d) through (f). Current

§ 450.316(c) would be redesignated as

§ 1410.316(g) and revised for clarity.

Current § 450.316(d) is proposed to be

redesignated as § 1410.316(h).

Proposed § 1410.316(i) is offered to

encourage the coordination of federally

funded non-emergency transportation

services per the requirements of section

1203(d)(4) of the TEA–21. The section

simply restates the legislative language.

Section 1410.318 Relation of Planning

and Project Development Processes

The TEA–21 eliminates the major

investment study (MIS) as a separate

requirement as set forth in the planning

regulations and calls for integration of

the requirement, as appropriate, into the

planning and NEPA analyses required

under proposed 23 CFR parts 1410 and

1420. Accordingly, current § 450.318

33936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

would be revised to focus on the

relationship between the planning and

project development processes.

Section 1308 of the TEA–21 directs

the US DOT Secretary to eliminate the

separate MIS and its elements and

integrate the remaining aspects of the

MIS into the planning and NEPA

regulations. The FHWA and FTA have

attempted to do this by focusing on the

fundamental basics of the MIS process,

i.e., the cooperative relationship of

planning and project development

agencies, the early engagement of permit

and resource agencies, flexible

definition of the need to do analyses as

decided by the participants and an

appropriate level of public involvement.

The MIS process did not require a

specific methodology for studying

alternatives, a specific set of alternatives

to study, a particular format for reports,

a specific public involvement or

analytical process, or a specific set of

projects to which the MIS applied. The

US EPA has specifically suggested that

the MIS process required and should

require the use of cost benefit, costs

effectiveness analysis and/or other

related analytical techniques. The logic

of this proposal is that early, effective

consideration of social, environmental

and economic considerations in

planning analyses should permit more

expedited consideration of these same

issues, at a more micro level of detail,

for subsequent NEPA analyses. By

linking the planning and project

development processes more effectively,

the participants can reduce time

required, analytical redundancy and

process requirements by utilizing

previously conducted work as a basis

for subsequent analyses and efforts. It is

the belief of the FTA and the FHWA

that an aggressive utilization of the

options provided here can strengthen

the planning process and streamline the

project development process

substantially. The agencies are

specifically interested in comments that

address the extent to which the

remaining aspects of the MIS process

have been included in this proposal and

suggestions for encouraging States and

MPOs to more effectively take advantage

of the options provided herein.

The overall structure of the

relationship emphasizes alternatives for

planning and sponsor agencies to

integrate decision processes to take

advantage of potential streamlining

opportunities and for early consultation

among the MPOs, State DOTs, and

transit operators. The planning process

is charged with providing an initial

statement of purpose and need for

proposed transportation improvements,

identifying and evaluating alternatives

(including, but not limited to, design

concept and scope) and selecting an

alternative and including it in the plan.

This statement would not necessarily

lead to a determination of purpose and

need on a project-by-project basis for

transportation improvements normally

grouped (not specified individually) in

a plan. An alternative could be a

programmatic statement of purpose and

need that identifies the basis for

investing resources in a given

transportation area such as safety or

pavement resurfacing.

The consideration of alternatives and

other planning level analyses done in

support of plan development do not

eliminate the need for considering all

reasonable alternatives during the NEPA

process. However, to the extent that the

planning participants anticipate the

required consideration of all reasonable

alternatives in the planning process,

they will significantly enhance, in our

view, the efficiency of the NEPA

process. Well documented, thorough

planning analyses should permit the

NEPA process to accept this information

as a sound basis for reducing the

alternatives considered and the detail

required for others in the NEPA process.

Provision also is made for policy

preferences and guidance from planning

policy bodies to be included on the

record for consideration in subsequent

decision steps.

Examples of issues that might be

covered in the planning level

consideration of alternatives include:

the consideration of alternatives that in

the past have been rejected for not fully

meeting traditional concepts of purpose

and need; more broadly defined purpose

and need statements during the

planning stage so that a full range of

modal alternatives are considered; an

alternatives analysis that examines ‘‘nobuild’’ alternatives that use

transportation demand strategies; and,

flexibility to encourage the selection of

alternatives which may have lower than

originally desired levels of

transportation service if there are cost,

time, and impact savings. The FHWA

and the FTA will work with the US EPA

on guidance and training in this regard.

A number of alternative sources of

information are identified as a basis for

the development of purpose and need,

a planning level analysis of alternatives

(primarily at the level of concept and

scope) and specification of a project for

inclusion in the transportation plan.

These information sources are utilized

at the discretion of participating

agencies (MPO, State DOT, and transit

agency) acting jointly. The underlying

logic of the proposal is that if the

options to document thoroughly and

analyze fully are chosen, this effort will

lead to expedited analytical efforts in

subsequent NEPA analyses. Less robust

analytical and documentation efforts

would force elaboration and analysis of

alternatives during the NEPA process.

The utilization of planning analyses

as a basis for project development

actions is explained. In particular the

regulatory language specifies that the

results of planning analyses shall serve

as input to the environmental process

under proposed 23 CFR part 1420

(current part 771), and other project

level actions. Proposed § 1410.318(c)

references the contents of proposed

§ 1420.201 to provide a frame of

reference to data and analytical

expectations in subsequent NEPA

process steps, i.e., the standard of

analysis expected by the NEPA process

for projects. Planning, systems level,

analyses that address these data and

analytical requirements can improve the

efficiency of the NEPA process and

reduce data and analytical efforts

required.

The ability to streamline the planning

and environmental relationship is

dependent, in part, on appropriate

decisions made by the planning

participants. They can choose to

develop a rigorous basis for establishing

transportation purpose and need,

identifying alternatives for evaluation,

and assessing these alternatives through

the planning process. Alternatively,

they can choose to apply minimal

analytical techniques. At the time the

NEPA analyses are undertaken for

project development, the agencies

participating in that process will review

the materials provided by the planning

process. Minimal analyses in planning

will have to be supplemented and

elaborated to satisfy the needs of the

NEPA process. More robust planning

analyses should allow the NEPA process

to reduce the need for revisiting and reevaluating planning level studies and

instead proceed to focus on project level

considerations of location and design.

Consequently, the consideration of

alternatives should be more quickly and

efficiently accomplished.

A similar option exists with regard to

documentation of planning results. A

set of planning activities to be

documented to facilitate this linkage is

specified in § 1410.318(a)(2). The option

to document is a discretionary option of

the planning participants in cooperation

with appropriate project sponsors. The

focus is not on the details of documents

but rather on the act of documenting the

results of analyses and studies. Robust

analyses coupled with sound

documentation will permit more

effective linkage and utilization of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33937

planning analyses and data collection in

subsequent NEPA analyses.

The early involvement of Federal and

State environmental and permit

agencies is encouraged under proposed

§ 1410.318(d) to facilitate linking

planning and environmental processes.

The involvement of the FTA is required

where planning studies are proposed to

satisfy requirements of the Major Capital

Investment Program administered by the

FTA under 49 CFR part 611. The TEA–

21 directive that Federal decisions on

plans and programs are not considered

a Federal action for NEPA purposes is

restated in proposed § 1410.318(f) (the

FHWA and the FTA do not approve

plans but they do approve the State TIP

which is not subject to NEPA). Finally,

the basis for Federal project actions in

plans and TIPs is specifically stated.

The intent of this latter provision, in

proposed § 1410.318(g), is to clearly

substantiate the need for projects to be

in plans before Federal actions can be

taken on them. A particular point is

made that project actions and the

appropriate phase of a project must be

in a plan and TIP before project actions

can be taken.

Section 1410.320 Congestion

Management System and Planning

Process

Current § 450.320 would be

redesignated as § 1410.320 and would

be revised to reflect the impact of the

issuance of the Management System

rule (23 CFR part 500) and the National

Highway System Act of 1995, Public

Law 104–59, 109 Stat. 568. The latter

made management systems optional,

except for the congestion management

system in transportation management

areas (TMA). Hence, the proposed

language focuses on the continuing

provisions of the congestion

management system in TMAs, including

the limitation on single occupant

vehicle capacity increases which

remains unchanged under the TEA–21.

With the exception of current

§ 450.320(a) which would be removed,

the remainder of the overall section is

generally unchanged.

One option considered, but not

included in this proposal, is to revise 23

CFR part 500 by transferring the

provisions dealing with the congestion

management system to the metropolitan

planning rule. The FHWA and the FTA

would welcome comments on this idea

with regard to its utility and

appropriateness.

Section 1410.322 Transportation Plan

Content

Current § 450.322 would be

redesignated as § 1410.322. Current

§ 450.322(a) would be modified by

adding a discussion of data assumptions

for plan updates. Specifically, the

language would clarify what must be

considered in preparing a plan update,

as a minimum. It also would reaffirm

that the MPO must approve the content

of a new plan or reaffirm existing plan

content in conducting an update. We

have chosen to provide this clarification

in response to requests from

stakeholders and to emphasize that a

plan is a critical document. Piecemeal

revisions that incrementally revise plans

do not constitute an appropriate,

accurate or meaningful basis for plan

development, implementation, and/or

subsequent decision making.

A proposed minor revision would be

made to § 450.322(b)(2) to reflect the

emphasis on management and operation

of the transportation system.

Current §§ 450.322(b)(3) through

(b)(6) would remain unchanged with the

exception of minor edits for clarity.

Current § 450.322(b)(7) would be

revised to reflect the elimination of the

MIS and redesignated as

§ 1410.322(b)(7). Current § 450.322(b)(8)

would be removed. Current

§§ 450.322(b)(9) and (10) would be

redesignated as §§ 1410.322(b)(8) and

(9), respectively.

Current § 450.322(b)(11) would be

redesignated as § 1410.322(b)(10) and

remain generally unchanged except for

the addition of the reference to

‘‘illustrative projects.’’ Illustrative

projects have no standing for

transportation or air quality purposes

until such time as a financing source

has been identified and they have been

formally amended into the plan by

action of the MPO. At that point they

could be added to a TIP as a project to

be advanced. We expect that the MPO

would coordinate its actions with the

State DOT and transit operator and vice

versa. Once formally added to a plan

and TIP, these projects may be included

in regional conformity findings,

advanced, and subject to appropriate

project level actions by the FHWA and

the FTA.

The remainder of § 450.322(b)(10)

would remain generally unchanged

since the TEA–21 either did not change

key provisions or reenforced previous

provisions required through regulation

(e.g., cooperative estimates of revenue

for plan development). With regard to

estimated revenues, we have opted to

rely on a cooperative process of State,

MPO and transit operator estimation

based on local preferences and

arrangements. We would support the

cooperative process through the

provision of guidance and identification

of good practices for emulation.

A new § 1410.322(b)(11) proposes to

focus on intelligent transportation

systems (ITS) and the National ITS

Architecture. As provided in section

5206(e) of TEA–21, we have issued

interim guidance on compliance with

this new legislative requirement. This

proposed wording is intended to be an

integral element of the proposed

regulatory issuance on compliance with

this requirement. A companion NPRM

issuance will be made for project

development and national policy on

consistency with the National ITS

Architecture. It will support planning as

the initial stage at which this

consistency must begin. We are issuing

the planning component through this

NPRM and solicit comments on this

proposal.

The existing wording of § 450.322(c)

would be redesignated as § 1410.322(c)

and would be modified to add users of

public transit and freight shippers as

directed by the TEA–21. A minor

modification would be made to

§ 450.322(d) (proposed § 1410.322(d)) to

clarify that if either the MPO or we fail

to make a conformity determination, the

Governor or the Governor’s designee

must be notified.

A new § 1410.322(e) would refine the

operating approach to plan changes and

updates. The question of a 20-year

horizon has received substantial

discussion as indicated previously. As

part of the clarification of the meaning

of the term ‘‘20-year horizon,’’ we are

proposing that a plan is valid for

transportation purposes if it has a

twenty year horizon at the time of

adoption. If no major changes are made

to the plan, e.g., the addition of a nonexempt project, then the plan would

remain valid as a basis for Federal

actions until its next regularly

scheduled update. This proposal also

indicates that it is our intent that

conformity determinations by the

FHWA/FTA be made as close as

possible to the MPO plan conformity

finding, i.e., as soon as possible after

MPO plan adoption and conformity

determination actions are taken. The

three year period and the twenty year

horizon would start at the point a

Federal conformity determination is

made on the plan for a nonattainment or

maintenance area. This will eliminate

confusion over the validity of the

transportation plan in relation to air

quality conformity determination. A

new conformity determination would be

required within eighteen months of

certain SIP actions according to 40 CFR

93.104, even if the three year period had

not expired at the time. In an attainment

area, the plan would be valid for five

33938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

years from MPO approval so long as no

regionally significant projects are added.

The current requirement of

§ 450.322(e) that new plans and plan

updates be provided to us would be

included in proposed § 1410.322(f).

A new § 1410.322(g) would be added

to authorize utilization of an interim

plan during an anticipated conformity

lapse. It is the intent of this section to

permit funding of existing exempt,

transportation control measures (TCMs)

and other projects that can advance

under a conformity lapse in accordance

with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. New

TCMs under this provision can only be

approved or funded during a conformity

lapse when they have been included in

an approved SIP with identified

emission reduction benefits (but not

necessarily credited in the applicable

SIP). Inclusion in the SIP would have to

occur before such TCMs can be

advanced into completion of the NEPA

process, design, right of way acquisition

and/or construction). An interim plan

may be used during a conformity lapse

to advance projects that can proceed

according to 40 CFR parts 51 and 93,

including existing TCMs and existing

and new exempt projects. It is the

expectation of the US DOT that this

provision would be utilized for new

TCM projects where a conformity lapse

would persist for six months or longer.

An interim plan may be used for periods

of less than six months to advance

existing TCM and existing and new

exempt projects.

Section 1410.324 Transportation

Improvement Program Content

Existing §§ 450.324(a) through (e)

would have minor modifications to the

text and be redesignated as

§§ 1410.324(a) through (e). Please note,

however, that an addition to proposed

§ 1410.324(b) would reflect the changes

in proposed § 1410.222(c) to limit STIP/

TIP extensions to 180 days in

attainment areas. The prohibition

against STIP/TIP extensions in

nonattainment and maintenance areas is

present also in proposed § 1410.324(b).

Additionally, the current wording

reflects TEA–21’s confirmation of the

previous regulatory provisions; most

notably, the cooperative estimate of

available funds. As indicated above, the

estimation process would be achieved

through locally identified processes.

In existing § 450.324 (proposed

§ 1410.324), proposed paragraph (f)(1)

would be unmodified. Paragraph (f)(2)

would be modified to reflect changes in

funding categories (e.g., minimum

guarantee, etc.) and the elimination of

the exemption for Motor Carrier State

Assistance Program and 23 U.S.C. 402

safety program projects from being

included in a TIP. The exemption for

these two categories would be removed

to reflect the ITS consistency

requirement discussed above and the

requirement that transportation projects

funded with Federal-aid funds must

satisfy the requirements of 23 U.S.C.

and, where appropriate, be found

conforming for air quality purposes.

In current § 450.324(f)(3)

(redesignated as § 1410.324(f)(3)),

‘‘approval’’ would be changed to

‘‘action’’ to reflect a broader concept

regarding the range of our activities

taken with regard to projects, i.e., not all

of them are labeled ‘‘approvals’’ but, yet,

they must still be based on plans and

programs.

Current §§ 450.324(f)(4) and (f)(5)

would be modified and redesignated as

§§ 1410.324(f)(5) and (f)(6), respectively.

The changes are intended to clarify that

all regionally significant projects in air

quality non-attainment and

maintenance areas, whether funded

federally or otherwise, would be

included in the metropolitan TIP. This

allows full consideration of all projects

in a regional conformity determination

and ensures that the provisions of the

CAA are met.

The three year conformity period for

a TIP would start from the date of the

conformity determination by the FHWA

and the FTA. It is our expectation that

the time period from the point of a

Federal conformity determination on

the TIP and its inclusion by the

Governor’s action in the STIP and the

subsequent gubernatorial approval of

the STIP and planning finding and STIP

approval by the FHWA and the FTA

would be monitored to ensure efficient

and expeditious processing by all

parties.

With the exception of proposed minor

changes for clarification regarding fiscal

constraint, § 450.324(g) (proposed

§ 1410.324(g)) would be unchanged. The

changes would reiterate the need for

specification of funding sources for

projects included in a TIP. The wording

of existing § 450.324(h) (proposed

§ 1410.324(h)) would be unchanged.

The content of § 450.324(i) (proposed

§ 1410.324(i)) would be modified to

indicate that only regionally significant

projects funded under Chapter 2 of 23

U.S.C. need be specifically identified in

a TIP. These projects are typically

‘‘Federal Lands’’ projects, e.g., Indian

Reservation Roads, National Park

Service Road, etc. The existing

§§ 450.324(j) through (m) (proposed

§ 1410.324(j) through (m)) would be

generally unchanged except for

statutory reference modifications.

Existing § 450.324(n) (proposed

§ 1410.324(n)) would be modified to

include an indication that projects are to

be included on the TIP until fully

authorized. A new § 1410.324(n)(5) is

proposed to require that the TIP shall

serve as the basis for an annual listing

of projects, supplemented as

appropriate, to ensure adequate public

information regarding projects funded

with Federal monies. Both changes are

geared at ensuring greater clarity as to

what projects must be included on a

TIP.

The second change to proposed

§ 1410.324(n) serves another purpose—

encouraging greater public knowledge

regarding which projects have been

advanced. In this case, we are opting to

allow the planning participants the

flexibility to design a process to comply

with the legislative directive provided

in section 134(h)(7)(B) of title 23 U.S.C.

for an annual listing of projects. While

the statute focuses on the MPO, we

believe that the State DOT, transit

operator, and the MPO operating jointly

can produce the required information.

The MPO, in cooperation with its

planning partners would, under this

proposal, utilize the TIP as the basis for

the annual listing. Each year the

participating agencies would identify

the projects that advanced (or did not)

and publish the ‘‘list’’ jointly, in a

fashion consistent with the public

involvement provisions for the

metropolitan area. Changes to the TIP

would be acknowledged and reflected in

modifications to the annual listing as

appropriate.

Current § 450.324(o) would be

redesignated as § 1410.324(o) with no

other changes.

In general, we believe that it may be

possible to further streamline the

information and procedural

requirements expected of TIPs,

particularly with regard to financial

information. We would be interested in

any possible information reduction

options that may be possible while

maintaining the principles and practices

of sound public involvement and fiscal

constraint.

A new § 1410.324(p) would be added

to authorize utilization of an interim TIP

during an anticipated conformity lapse.

It is the intent of this section to permit

funding of existing exempt,

transportation control measures (TCMs)

and other projects that can advance

under a conformity lapse in accordance

with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. New

TCMs under this provision can only be

approved or funded when they have

been included in an approved SIP with

identified emission reduction benefits

(but not necessarily credited in the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33939

applicable SIP). These TCMs would

have to be included in the SIP before

they can be advanced into completion of

the NEPA process, design, right of way

acquisition and/or construction). An

interim plan may be used during a

conformity lapse to advance projects

that can proceed according to 40 CFR

parts 51 and 93, including existing

TCMs and existing and new exempt

projects. It is the expectation of the US

DOT that this provision would be

utilized for new TCM projects where a

conformity lapse would persist for six

months or longer. An interim TIP may

be used for periods of less than six

months to advance existing TCM and

existing and new exempt projects.

Section 1410.326 Transportation

Improvement Program Modification

Current § 450.326 would be

redesignated as § 1410.326. The only

change to this section would be to

clarify when a new conformity

determination is necessary. The

addition of non-exempt projects, or

replacement of an existing TIP by a new

TIP, requires a new conformity

determination. Similarly, moving a

project or a phase of a project from year

four, five, or later of a TIP to the first

three years would be an amendment and

require a new conformity determination.

We believe that frequent modification of

TIPs through the addition of nonexempt projects is inconsistent with the

principles of fiscal constraint and public

involvement. Hence, we intend to make

it clear that a new conformity

determination is necessary unless the

changes to TIPs are minor, i.e., addition

or deletion of exempt projects.

Section 450.328 Transportation

Improvement Program Relationship to

Statewide TIP

Current § 450.328 would be

redesignated as § 1410.328. The text

would remain unchanged.

Section 1410.330 Transportation

Improvement Program Action by

FHWA/FTA

Current § 450.330 would be

redesignated as § 1410.330. The

provisions of current §§ 450.330(a) and

(b) would be redesignated as

§§ 1410.330(a) and (b). There would be

very minor wording changes for

clarification or technical corrections. A

new § 1410.330(c) would be added to

address the addition of ‘‘illustrative

projects’’ to TIPs. This paragraph makes

it clear that no Federal action may be

taken on these projects until they

become formally included in the TIP as

indicated previously.

Consistent with the overall purposes

of the planning process and the need for

Federal actions on planning processes

and products as appropriate as

described in this proposed regulation,

project funding is contingent on the

existence of a plan and TIP. If a plan

and TIP are not updated as required

herein, new funding actions cannot be

taken.

Section 1410.332 Selecting Projects

from a TIP

Current § 450.332 would be

redesignated as § 1410.332. Current

§§ 450.332(a), (b) and (c) would be

redesignated as §§ 1410.332((b), (c) and

(a), respectively, with only citation

corrections to the text. Proposed

§§ 1410.332(d) and (e) (current

§§ 450.332(d) and (e), respectively)

would include citation corrections and

in paragraph (e) the word ‘‘will’’ would

become ‘‘shall’’ to reflect the force of

law under the CAA. Consistent with

previous program practice by the FHWA

and the FTA, selecting a project for

advancement from year two or three of

a TIP does not require a TIP

amendment.

Section 1410.334 Certifications

Current § 450.334 would be

redesignated as § 1410.334. Current

§ 450.334(a) would have three new

paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(8) under

this proposal. These paragraphs add

references to compliance with

additional Federal statutes but do not

represent new compliance

requirements. These requirements

previously existed and the regulations

would be revised to point out their

existence.

Paragraph (d) would be revised to

clarify the basis for Federal certification

actions in relation to Federal findings

during the review process. The wording

of current paragraph (e) would be the

same as the sanctions specified in

paragraph (f). Current paragraph (g)

would be eliminated to reflect changes

made by the TEA–21 (related to the

failure to remain certified for two years

after October 1994). A new proposed

§ 1410.334(g) would focus on the new

statutory requirement for public

involvement during a certification

review. We previously required this

through administrative directive. Hence,

there would be no change in practice,

other than to further encourage broad

public outreach as part of certification

reviews.

Phase-in of New Requirements

No phase-in period for any

requirements under the TEA–21 is

proposed. Current § 450.336 would be

removed. Comments on the desirability

of such requirements and the specific

areas for which they are warranted are

welcome.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received 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.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies

We have determined that this

rulemaking is a significant regulatory

action within the meaning of Executive

Order 12866 and 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. This

rulemaking is a revision to an existing

regulation for which the costs of

compliance have previously been

addressed. The modifications proposed

herein are intended to reduce current

regulatory requirements (e.g.,

simplification of planning factors,

elimination of separate MIS

requirement, simplification of planning

area boundary establishment, etc.) and

to add some additional data analysis

requirements (e.g., elaboration of

environmental justice data analyses,

preparation of an Intelligent

Transportation Systems Integration

Strategy, addition of operations and

management responsibility, etc.). In

preparing this proposal, the agencies

have sought to maintain existing

flexibility of operation wherever

possible for States, MPOs, and other

affected organizations and utilize

already existing processes to accomplish

any new tasks or activities. As a result,

we believe that the economic impact of

this rulemaking in comparison to the

existing regulation should be the same

or less.

The marginal additional costs

associated with these proposed rules are

attributable to the streamlining

33940 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

provisions of the TEA–21. Achieving

the goals of these provisions more

efficiently and effectively warrants the

regulatory changes proposed herein.

Furthermore, we provide substantial

financial assistance to States and MPOs

to support compliance with the

regulatory requirements of this part.

Funding for the planning process

increased substantially under the TEA–

21 and should, we believe, off-set much

of the economic impact on entities

complying with these requirements.

This proposed rule would revise

existing metropolitan planning

regulations of the FHWA and the FTA

and conform those regulations to

requirements of the TEA–21. While they

incorporate some new requirements, the

bulk of them have been in place for

many years and States and metropolitan

planning organizations have been

implementing them. In the past, we

have provided funding to support

planning activities and production of

required transportation documents, e.g.,

transportation plans and improvement

programs. During Fiscal Year 1999, the

FHWA will provide in excess of $187

million for metropolitan planning and

$492 million for State planning and

research activities. The FTA provided

$42 million for metropolitan planning.

For both agencies, there is a statutory

matching grant requirement which

stipulates that recipients must match

Federal funds at least on an 80 percent

Federal, 20 percent recipient basis. To

meet the State planning funds matching

requirement, States will expend

approximately $98 million. The MPOs

will have to provide approximately $46

million of non-Federal funds to match

the Federal metropolitan planning funds

(the FHWA and the FTA funds

combined). If the States and other

recipient’s choose not to accept Federal

support for transportation they would

not have to develop the plans and

programs stipulated in this proposed

rule. Hence, the Federal government

provides a substantial economic

incentive to encourage State and

metropolitan planning. In addition,

these rules support the EPA conformity

regulation at 40 CFR parts 53 and 91

which establishes requirements for

MPOs to perform regional transportation

and emissions modeling and to

document the regional air quality

impacts of transportation improvements

contained in plans and programs.

The impacts on the States and MPOs

result mainly from modified data

collection and analysis activities that

may be necessary to implement the

TEA–21 planning provisions. A single

new provision in § 1410.322(b)(11)

focuses on the requirements for

satisfying section 5206(e) of the TEA–21

regarding demonstrating consistency of

Intelligent Transportation Systems

projects funded with highway trust fund

dollars with the provisions of the

National ITS Architecture. The

economic impacts of this provision are

addressed in the regulatory analysis

being prepared for the specific

rulemaking on ITS architecture

consistency. We anticipate that the

elements required in the planning

process for ITS consistency would

generally be undertaken anyway as a

part of the plan development activities

and do not require significant new

processes or requirements of MPOs and

States.

In general, we believe that the rule

changes proposed here have added

limited regulatory requirements. The

impact of complying with the changes

can be minimized by States and MPOs

by using the flexibility provided in the

proposed rule to reduce data collection

and analysis costs. While there may be

additional costs to some States and

MPOs, the TEA–21 significantly

increased the mandatory set-aside in

Federal funds that must be used for

transportation planning, and in

addition, gives the States and MPOs the

flexibility to use Federal capital dollars

for transportation planning if they so

desire. We are interested in the costs to

States and MPOs of complying with the

proposed requirements, including the

expenditure of State and MPO funds

above the required matching amounts.

Comments on this matter are welcome.

The agencies welcome comment on

the economic impacts of these proposed

regulations. Comments, including those

from the States 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, burden, and

impact.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Public Law 96–354; 5

U.S.C. 601–612), we have evaluated the

effects of these rules on small entities,

such as, local governments and

businesses. The proposed metropolitan

and statewide planning regulations

modify existing planning requirements.

These modifications are substantially

dictated by the statutory provisions of

the TEA–21. We believe that the

flexibility available to States and MPOs

in responding to requirements has been

maintained, if not enhanced, in this

proposal. Accordingly, the FHWA and

the FTA certify that this action would

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

We are interested in any comments

regarding the potential economic

impacts of these proposed rules on

small entities and governments. Of

specific concern are the additional costs

of the incremental changes in our

regulatory requirements. The agencies

believe that these costs have been off-set

largely by reduced statutory

requirements and the flexibility built

into the regulations. The agencies are

requesting comments on these issues.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism

Assessment)

This proposed action has been

reviewed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 13132, dated August 4,

1999, and it has been determined that

this action does not have a substantial

direct effect or sufficient Federalism

implications on States and local

governments that would limit the

policymaking discretion of the States.

Nothing in this document directly

preempts any State law or regulation.

The TEA–21 and its predecessors

authorize the Secretary to implement

the provisions for metropolitan and

statewide planning. We believe that

policies in these proposed rules are

consistent with the principles, criteria

and requirements of the Federalism

Executive Order and the TEA–21.

Comments on these conclusions are

welcomed and should be submitted to

the docket.

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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520),

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. We have

determined that this proposal contains a

requirement for minor additional data

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33941

collection to satisfy the provisions of the

TEA–21 associated with ITS and

environmental justice. The FHWA and

the FTA believe that this burden

increase has been off-set by decreases in

requirements associated with the seven

planning factors and related matters.

The reporting requirements for

metropolitan UPWPs, transportation

plans and transportation improvement

programs are currently approved under

OMB control number 2132–0529. An

extension request was filed with OMB

on January 28, 2000, and a Notice of

Request for Extension was published in

the Federal Register on April 7, 2000

(65 FR 18421). The analysis supporting

this approval was conducted by the FTA

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 241,850 hours on the

planning agencies that must comply

with the requirements in the existing

regulation. We initiated the preparation

of materials to obtain a new three year

approval from OMB in January 2000.

The request for a new data collection

approval will be filed with OMB before

publication of this NPRM. The FHWA

and the FTA are soliciting comments on

this NPRM regarding the extent to

which any additional burden, beyond

that associated with the current

collection requirement, will be incurred

by States and MPOs.

The creation and submission of

required reports and documents have

been constrained to those specifically

required by the TEA–21 or essential to

the performance of our findings,

certifications and/or approvals. The

State plans are prepared on cycles

individually determined by the States;

the average is 10 such submissions per

year. The State TIPs are prepared every

two years. Approximately one third of

all metropolitan areas prepare new

plans every three years. The remaining

metropolitan plans are updated every

five years. We have assumed a

distribution over several years for the

plans. We have assumed that half of all

TIPs are submitted annually. We assume

an annual submission of unified

planning work programs. By

distributing the added burden for

preparing these various submissions,

the net result would be a minimal

burden increase for each type of

submission.

Interested parties are invited to send

comments regarding any aspect of this

information collection, including, but

not limited to: (1) The necessity and

utility of the information collection for

the proper 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 collected information; and

(4) ways to minimize the collection

burden without reducing the quality of

the collected information. Comments

submitted in response to the NPRM will

be summarized and/or included in the

request for OMB’s clearance of this

information collection.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have analyzed these proposed

actions for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). It is our

determination this action is consistent

with the provisions of 23 CFR

771.117(c)(20) which deems the

issuance of regulations of this nature to

meet the requirements for a Categorical

Exclusion.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This rule does not impose a Federal

mandate resulting in the expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million in any one year. (2 U.S.C.

1531 et seq.)

The requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134

and 135 are supported by Federal funds

administered by the FHWA and the

FTA. There is a legislatively established

local matching requirement for these

funds of twenty percent of the total

project cost. The FHWA and the FTA

believe that the costs of complying with

these requirements is predominantly

covered by the funds they administer.

However, as has been the case with

previous regulatory issuances, we

welcome comments from States, MPOs,

transit agencies and other organizations

regarding the extent to which the cost of

compliance is covered by the funds

provided.

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 will 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.

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 every year. The RINs

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 1410

Grant programs—transportation,

Highways and roads, Mass

transportation, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 613

Grant programs—transportation, Mass

transportation, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 621

Grant programs—transportation, Mass

transportation, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Chapter I

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

and under the authority of 23 U.S.C.

134, 135, and 315, the FHWA proposes

to amend Chapter I of title 23, Code of

Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 450—[REMOVED]

1. Remove part 450.

23 CFR Chapter IV

2. For reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Federal Highway

Administration and the Federal Transit

Administration propose to establish a

new chapter IV in title 23, Code of

Federal Regulations, consisting of part

1410 as set forth below:

33942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

CHAPTER IV—FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATION AND FEDERAL TRANSIT

ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

PART 1410—METROPOLITAN AND

STATEWIDE PLANNING

Subpart A—Definitions

Sec.

1410.100 Purpose.

1410.102 Applicability.

1410.104 Definitions.

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation

Planning and Programming

1410.200 Purpose.

1410.202 Applicability.

1410.204 Definitions.

1410.206 Statewide transportation planning

process basic requirements.

1410.208 Consideration of statewide

transportation planning factors.

1410.210 Coordination of planning process

activities.

1410.212 Participation by interested parties.

1410.214 Content and development of

statewide transportation plan.

1410.216 Content and development of

statewide transportation improvement

program.

1410.218 Relation of planning and project

development processes.

1410.220 Funding of planning process.

1410.222 Approvals, self-certification and

findings.

1410.224 Project selection.

1410.226 Applicability of NEPA to

transportation planning and

programming.

Subpart C—Metropolitan Transportation

Planning and Programming

1410.300 Purpose of planning process.

1410.302 Organizations and processes

affected by planning requirements.

1410.304 Definitions.

1410.306 What is a Metropolitan Planning

Organization and how is it created?

1410.308 Establishing the geographic

boundaries for metropolitan

transportation planning areas.

1410.310 Agreements among organizations

involved in the planning process.

1410.312 Planning process organizational

relationships.

1410.314 Planning tasks and unified work

program.

1410.316 Transportation planning process

and plan development.

1410.318 Relation of planning and project

development processes.

1410.320 Congestion management system

and planning process.

1410.322 Transportation plan content.

1410.324 Transportation improvement

program content.

1410.326 Transportation improvement

program modification.

1410.328 Metropolitan transportation

improvement program relationship to

statewide TIP.

1410.330 Transportation improvement

program action by FHWA/FTA.

1410.332 Selecting projects from a TIP.

1410.334 Federal certifications.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 315; 42

U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 5303–5305; 49

CFR 1.48 and 1.51.

Subpart A Definitions

§ 1410.100 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to

provide definitions for terms used in

this part which go beyond those terms

defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 49

U.S.C. 5302.

§ 1410.102 Applicability.

The definitions in this subpart are

applicable to this part, except as

otherwise provided.

§ 1410.104 Definitions.

Except as defined in this subpart,

terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 49

U.S.C. 5302 are used in this part as so

defined.

Conformity lapse means that the

conformity determination for a

transportation plan or TIP has expired,

and thus there is no currently

conforming transportation plan and TIP.

Conformity rule means the EPA

Transportation Conformity Rule, as

amended, 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.

Congestion management system

means a systematic process for

managing congestion that provides

information on transportation system

performance and on alternative

strategies for alleviating congestion and

enhancing the mobility of persons and

goods to levels that meet State and local

needs.

Consultation means that one party

confers with another party, in

accordance with an established process,

about an anticipated action and then

keeps that party informed about actions

taken.

Cooperation means that the parties

involved in carrying out the planning

and/or project development processes

work together to achieve a common goal

or objective.

Coordination means the comparison

of the transportation plans, programs,

and schedules of one agency with

related plans, programs and schedules

of other agencies and adjustment of

plans, programs and schedules to

achieve general consistency.

Design concept means the type of

facility identified by the project, e.g.,

freeway, expressway, arterial highway,

grade-separated highway, reserved rightof-way rail transit, mixed-traffic rail

transit, exclusive busway, etc.

Design scope means the design

aspects which will affect the proposed

facility’s impact on regional emissions,

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, access control including

approximate number and location of

interchanges, preferential treatment for

high-occupancy vehicles, etc.

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.

Financial estimate means a projection

of Federal and State resources that will

serve as a basis for developing plans and

/or TIPs.

Freight shipper means an entity that

utilizes a freight carrier in the

movement of its goods.

Governor means the Governor of any

one of the fifty States, or Puerto Rico,

and includes the Mayor of the District

of Columbia.

Illustrative project means a

transportation improvement that would

be included in a financially constrained

transportation plan and program if

reasonable additional financial

resources were available to support it.

Indian Tribal Government means a

duly formed governing body of an

Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band,

nation, pueblo, village, or community

that the Secretary of the Interior

acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe

pursuant to the Federally Recognized

Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C.

479a.

Interim plan means a plan composed

of projects eligible to proceed under a

conformity lapse (as defined in 40 CFR

parts 51 and 93) and otherwise meeting

all other provisions of this part

including adoption by the MPOs.

Interim transportation improvement

program means a TIP composed of

projects eligible to proceed under a

conformity lapse (as defined in 40 CFR

parts 51 and 93 ) and otherwise meeting

all other provisions of this part

including approval by the Governor.

ITS integration strategy means a

systematic approach for coordinating

and implementing intelligent

transportation system investments

funded with Federal highway trust

funds to achieve an integrated regional

system.

Maintenance area means any

geographic region of the United States

previously designated nonattainment

pursuant to the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (CAA) and

subsequently redesignated to attainment

subject to the requirement to develop a

maintenance plan under section 175A of

the CAA, as amended.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33943

Management and operation means

actions and strategies aimed at

improving the person, vehicle and/or

freight carrying capacity, safety,

efficiency and effectiveness of the

existing and future transportation

system to enhance mobility and

accessibility in the area served.

Metropolitan planning area means the

geographic area in which the

metropolitan transportation planning

process required by 23 U.S.C. 134 and

49 U.S.C. 5303–5306 must be carried

out.

Metropolitan planning organization

(MPO) means the forum for cooperative

transportation decision making for the

metropolitan planning area pursuant to

23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.

Metropolitan transportation plan

means the official intermodal

transportation plan that is developed

and adopted through the metropolitan

transportation planning process for the

metropolitan planning area, in

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135

and 49 U.S.C. 5303.

Nonattainment area means any

geographic region of the United States

which has been designated as

nonattainment under section 107 of the

CAA for any pollutant for which a

national ambient air quality standard

exists.

Non-metropolitan local official means

elected or appointed officials of general

purpose local government, outside

metropolitan planning areas, with

jurisdiction/responsibility for

transportation or other community

development actions that impact

transportation and elected officials for

special transportation and planning

agencies, such as economic

development districts and land use

planning agencies.

Provider of freight transportation

services means a shipper or carrier

which transports or otherwise facilitates

the movement of goods from one point

to another.

Purpose and need means the intended

outcome and sustaining rationale for a

proposed transportation improvement,

including, but not limited, to mobility

deficiencies for identified populations

and geographic areas.

Regionally significant project means a

transportation project (other than an

exempt project) that is on a facility

which serves regional transportation

needs (such as access to and from the

area outside of the region, major activity

centers in the region, major planned

developments such as new retail malls,

sports complexes, etc., or transportation

terminals as well as most terminals

themselves) and would normally be

included in the modeling of a

metropolitan area’s transportation

network, including at a minimum all

principal arterial highways and all fixed

guideway transit facilities that offer an

alternative to regional highway travel.

State means any one of the fifty

States, the District of Columbia, or

Puerto Rico.

State implementation plan (SIP)

means:

(1) The implementation plan which

contains specific strategies for

controlling emissions of and reducing

ambient levels of pollutants in order to

satisfy Clean Air Act (CAA)

requirements for demonstrations of

reasonable further progress and

attainment (CAA secs. 182(b)(1),

182(c)(2)(A), 182(c)(2)(B), 187(a)(7),

189(a)(1)(B), and 189(b)(1)(A); and

secs.192(a) and 192(b), for nitrogen

dioxide of the CAA); or

(2) The implementation plan under

section 175A of the CAA as amended.

Statewide transportation

improvement program (STIP) means a

staged, multi-year, statewide,

intermodal program of transportation

projects which is consistent with the

statewide transportation plan and

planning processes and metropolitan

plans, TIPs and processes pursuant to

23 U.S.C. 135.

Statewide transportation

improvement program (STIP) extension

means the lengthening of the scheduled

duration of an existing STIP, including

the component metropolitan TIPs

included in the STIP, beyond two years

by joint administrative action of the

FHWA and the FTA. STIP extensions

are not allowed for metropolitan TIP

portions of the STIP which are in

nonattainment or maintenance areas as

well as for those portions of the STIP

containing projects in rural

nonattainment or maintenance areas.

Statewide transportation plan means

the official statewide, intermodal

transportation plan that is developed

through the statewide transportation

planning process pursuant to 23 U.S.C.

135.

TIP update means the periodic reexamination and revision of TIP

contents, including, but not limited to,

non-exempt projects, on a scheduled

basis, normally at least every two years.

The addition or deletion of a nonexempt project or phase of a nonexempt project to a TIP shall be based

on a comprehensive update of the TIP.

Transportation control measure

means any measure that is specifically

identified and committed to in the

applicable implementation plan that is

either one of the types listed in section

108 of the CAA, or any other measure

for the purpose of reducing emissions or

concentrations of air pollutants from

transportation sources by reducing

vehicle use or changing traffic flow or

congestion conditions. Notwithstanding

the above, vehicle technology-based,

fuel-based, and maintenance-based

measures which control the emissions

from vehicles under fixed traffic

conditions are not TCMs.

Transportation improvement program

(TIP) means a staged, multi-year,

intermodal program of transportation

projects in the metropolitan planning

area which is consistent with the

metropolitan transportation plan.

Transportation Management Area

(TMA) means an urbanized area with a

population over 200,000 (as determined

by the latest decennial census) or other

area when TMA designation is

requested by the Governor and the MPO

(or affected local officials), and officially

designated by the Administrators of the

FHWA and the FTA. The TMA

designation applies to the entire

metropolitan planning area(s).

Transportation plan update means

the periodic review, revision or

reaffirmation of plan content, normally

every three years in nonattainment and

maintenance areas and five years in

attainment areas or the update period

for State plans as determined by the

State.

Twenty year planning horizon means

a forecast period covering twenty years

from the date of plan adoption,

reaffirmation or modification in

attainment areas and subsequent

Federal conformity finding at the time

of adoption in nonattainment and

maintenance areas. The plan must

reflect the most recent planning

assumptions for current and future

population, travel, land use, congestion,

employment, economic activity and

other related statistical measures for the

metropolitan planning area.

Urbanized area (UZA) means a

geographic area with a population of at

least 50,000 as designated by the U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census based on the latest decennial

census or special census as appropriate.

User of public transit means any

person or group representing such

persons who use mass transportation

open to the public other than taxis and

other privately operated vehicles.

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation

Planning and Programming

§ 1410.200 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to

implement 23 U.S.C. 135, which

requires each State to carry out a

transportation planning process that

shall be continuing, cooperative, and

33944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1 DOT order 5610.2 and FHWA order 6640.23 are

available for inspection and copying from DOT

headquarters and field offices as prescribed at 49

CFR part 7.

comprehensive to the degree

appropriate, based on the complexity of

the transportation problems to be

addressed. The transportation planning

process shall be intermodal and shall

develop a statewide transportation plan

and transportation improvement

program for all areas of the State,

including those areas subject to the

requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49

U.S.C. 5303–5305. The plan and

program shall facilitate the development

and integrated management and

operation of safe transportation systems

and facilities (including pedestrian

walkways and bicycle transportation

facilities) that will function as an

intermodal transportation system for the

State and an integral part of an

intermodal transportation system for the

United States. The intermodal

transportation system shall provide for

safe, efficient, economic movement of

people and goods in all areas of the

State and foster economic growth and

development while minimizing

transportation-related fuel consumption

and air pollution.

§ 1410.202 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to States and any other

agencies/organizations, such as MPOs,

transit operators and air quality

agencies, that are responsible for

satisfying these requirements for

transportation planning, programming

and project development throughout the

State pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135.

§ 1410.204 Definitions.

Except as otherwise provided in

subpart A of this part, terms defined in

23 U.S.C. 101(a) are used in this part as

so defined.

§ 1410.206 Statewide transportation

planning process basic requirements.

(a) The statewide transportation

planning process shall include, as a

minimum, the following:

(1) Data collection and analysis;

(2) Consideration of factors contained

in § 1410.208;

(3) Coordination of activities as noted

in § 1410.210;

(4) Development of a statewide

transportation plan for all areas of the

State that considers a range of

transportation options designed to meet

the transportation needs (e.g., passenger,

freight, safety, etc.) of the State

including all modes and their

connections;

(5) Development of a statewide

transportation improvement program

(STIP) for all areas of the State; and

(6) Various processes to accomplish

data collection and analyses essential

for an effective transportation planning

process, including a process to assure

that, no person shall, on the grounds of

race, color, sex, national origin, age, or

physical handicap, be excluded from

participation in, be denied benefits of,

or be otherwise subjected to

discrimination under any program or

activity receiving Federal assistance

from the U.S. Department of

Transportation. These assurances shall

be demonstrated through the following:

(i) An assessment covering the State,

including at a minimum the following:

(A) A geographic and demographic

profile of the State that identifies the

low-income and minority, and where

appropriate, elderly and persons with

disabilities, components of this profile;

(B) The transportation services

available to or planned for these

segments of the State population;

(C) Any disproportionately high and

adverse environmental effects,

including interrelated social and

economic effects, consistent with the

provisions of Executive Order 12898 (59

FR 7629, 3 CFR, 1995 comp., p. 859) as

implemented through US DOT Order

5610.2 and FHWA Order 6640.23; 1 and

(D) Any denial of or a reduction in

benefits;

(ii) Consideration of comments

received during public involvement

efforts (consistent with the provisions of

§ 1410.212(b)) to ensure that expressed

concerns of the elderly, minority

individuals and persons with

disabilities, have been addressed during

plan and program decision making;

(iii) Identification of prior and

planned efforts to address any

disproportionately high and adverse

effects that are found;

(iv) The results of paragraphs (a)(5)(i),

(ii) and (iii) of this section will be

documented in a manner to permit

public review during appropriate

project development activities;

(v) The State may rely on information

provided by a metropolitan planning

organization for those segments of the

population in metropolitan planning

areas of the State; and

(vi) In accordance with Executive

Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2, and

FHWA Order 6640.23, nothing in

paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (vi) of this

section are intended to nor shall they

create any right to judicial review of any

action taken by the agency, its officers

or its recipients taken under this part to

comply with such Orders.

(b) [Reserved].

§ 1410.208 Consideration of statewide

transportation planning factors.

(a) Each statewide transportation

planning process shall provide for

consideration of projects and strategies

that will:

(1) Support the economic vitality of

the United States, the States, and

metropolitan areas, especially by

enabling global competitiveness,

productivity and efficiency;

(2) Increase the safety and security of

the transportation system for motorized

and nonmotorized users;

(3) Increase the accessibility and

mobility options available to people and

for freight;

(4) Protect and enhance the

environment, promote energy

conservation, and improve quality of

life;

(5) Enhance the integration and

connectivity of the transportation

system, across and between modes

throughout the State, for people and

freight;

(6) Promote efficient system

management and operation; and

(7) Emphasize the preservation of the

existing transportation system.

(b) In addition, in carrying out

statewide transportation planning, the

State shall consider, at a minimum, the

following and other factors and issues

that the planning process participants

might identify which are important

considerations within the statewide

transportation planning process:

(1) With respect to nonmetropolitan

areas, the concerns of local elected

officials representing units of general

purpose local government; and

(2) The concerns of Indian Tribal

Governments and Federal land

management agencies that have

jurisdiction over land within the

boundaries of the State.

§ 1410.210 Coordination of planning

process activities.

(a) The statewide transportation

planning process shall be carried out in

coordination with adjacent States,

adjacent countries as appropriate at the

international borders, and with the

metropolitan planning process required

by subpart C of this part.

(b) The statewide transportation

planning process shall be coordinated

with air quality planning and provide

for appropriate conformity analyses to

the extent required by the Clean Air Act

(40 U.S.C. 175 and 176). The State shall

carry out its responsibilities for the

development of the transportation

portion of the State Implementation

Plan to the extent required by the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), as appropriate

within the statewide transportation

planning process.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33945

(c) Development of transportation

plans, programs and planning activities

shall be coordinated with related

planning activities being carried out

outside of metropolitan planning areas.

(d) The statewide transportation

planning process shall provide a forum

for coordinating data collection and

analyses to support, planning,

programming and project development

decisions.

(e) The degree of coordination shall be

based on the scale and complexity of

many issues including transportation

problems, safety concerns, land use,

employment, economic, environmental,

and housing and community

development objectives, and other

circumstances statewide or in subareas

within the State.

§ 1410.212 Participation by interested

parties.

(a) Non-metropolitan local official

participation.

(1) The State shall have a documented

process for consultation with local

officials in non-metropolitan areas

within the continuing, cooperative and

comprehensive planning process for

development of the statewide

transportation plan and the statewide

transportation improvement program.

The process shall be documented and

cooperatively developed by both the

State and nonmetropolitan local

officials.

(2) The process for participation of

nonmetropolitan local officials shall not

be reviewed or approved by the FHWA

and the FTA. However, local official

participation will be among the issues

considered by the FHWA and the FTA

in making the transportation planning

finding called for in § 1410.222(b).

(b) Public involvement.

(1) Public involvement processes shall

be open and proactive by providing

complete information, timely public

notice, full public access to key

decisions, and opportunities for early

and continuing involvement.

(2) To satisfy these objectives public

involvement processes shall provide for:

(i) Early and continuing public

involvement opportunities throughout

the transportation planning and

programming process; and

(ii) Timely information about

transportation issues and processes to

citizens, affected public agencies,

representatives of transportation agency

employees, private providers of

transportation, freight shippers,

providers of freight transportation

services, representatives of users of

public transit, and other interested

parties and segments of the community

affected by transportation plans,

programs, and projects;

(iii) Reasonable public access to

technical and policy information used

in the development of the plan and

STIP;

(iv) Adequate public notice of public

involvement activities and time for

public review and comment at key

decision points, including, but not

limited, to action on the plan and STIP;

(v) A process for demonstrating

explicit consideration and response to

public input during the planning and

program development process,

including responses to input received

from persons with disabilities and

minority, elderly, and low-income

populations;

(vi) A process for seeking out and

considering the needs of those

traditionally under served by existing

transportation systems, including, but

not limited to, low-income and minority

populations which may face challenges

accessing employment and other

amenities;

(vii) Periodic review of the

effectiveness of the public involvement

process to ensure that the process

provides full and open access to all and

revision of the process as necessary,

with specific attention to the

effectiveness of efforts to engage persons

with disabilities, minority individuals,

the elderly and low-income

populations.

(3) Public involvement activities

carried out in a metropolitan area in

response to metropolitan planning

requirements in § 1410.322(c) or

§ 1410.324(c) may by agreement of the

State and the MPO satisfy the

requirements of this section.

(4) During initial development and

major revisions of the statewide

transportation plan required under

§ 1410.214, the State shall provide

citizens, affected public agencies and

jurisdictions, representatives of

transportation agency employees,

private and public providers of

transportation, representatives of users

of public transit, freight shippers

providers of freight transportation

services and other interested parties a

reasonable opportunity to comment on

the proposed plan. The proposed plan

shall be published, with reasonable

notification of its availability, or

otherwise made readily available for

public review and comment. Likewise,

the official statewide transportation

plan (see § 1410.214(d)) shall be

published, with reasonable notification

of its availability, or otherwise made

readily available for public information.

(5) During development and major

revision of the statewide transportation

improvement program required under

§ 1410.216, the Governor shall provide

citizens, affected public agencies and

jurisdictions, representatives of

transportation agency employees,

private and public providers of

transportation, representatives of users

of public transit, freight shippers,

providers of freight transportation

services and other interested parties, a

reasonable opportunity for review and

comment on the proposed program. The

proposed program shall be published,

with reasonable notification of its

availability, or otherwise made readily

available for public review and

comment. The approved program (see

§ 1410.222(b)) if it differs significantly

from the proposed program, shall be

published, with reasonable notification

of its availability, or otherwise made

readily available for public information.

(6) The time provided for public

review and comment for minor

revisions to the statewide transportation

plan or statewide transportation

improvement program shall be

determined by the State and local

officials based on the complexity of the

revisions.

(7) The State shall, as appropriate,

provide for public comment on existing

and proposed procedures for public

involvement throughout the statewide

transportation planning and

programming process. As a minimum,

the State shall publish procedures and

allow 45 days for public review and

written comment before the procedures

and any major revisions to existing

procedures are adopted.

(c) Federal agency and other

government participation. The

transportation planning process shall

allow for participation of other

governments and agencies, particularly

Indian Tribal Governments and Federal

lands managing agencies. The process

for consulting with Indian Tribal

Governments and Federal lands

managing agencies shall be

cooperatively developed and

documented by both the State and the

Indian Tribal Government(s) or the

respective Federal lands managing

agency.

(d) State air quality agency and other

state agency participation. The

transportation planning process shall

allow for participation of the State air

quality agency and other state agencies

as determined appropriate by the

planning process participants.

(e) Participation and the planning

finding. The processes for participation

of interested parties will be considered

by the FHWA and the FTA as they make

the planning finding required in

§ 1410.222(b) to assure that full and

33946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

open access is provided to the decision

making process.

§ 1410.214 Content and development of

statewide transportation plan.

(a) The State shall develop a statewide

transportation plan that shall:

(1) Cover all areas of the State;

(2) Be intermodal (including

consideration and provision, as

applicable, of elements and connections

of and between transit, non-motorized,

rail, commercial motor vehicle,

waterway, and aviation facilities,

particularly with respect to intercity

travel) and statewide in scope in order

to facilitate the safe and efficient

movement of people and goods;

(3) Address the development of

intelligent transportation systems (ITS)

investment strategies, including an ITS

Integration Strategy consistent with the

provisions of § 1410.322(b)(11), to

support the development of integrated

technology based investments,

including metropolitan and nonmetropolitan investments. The scope of

the integration strategy shall be

appropriate to the scale of investment

anticipated for ITS during the life of the

plan and shall address the level of

resources and staging of planned

investments. ITS Integration Strategy

shall be developed and documented no

later than the first update of the

transportation plan or STIP that occurs

two years following the effective date of

the final rule;

(4) Be reasonably consistent in time

horizon among its elements, but cover a

forecast period of at least 20 years;

(5) Provide for development and

integrated management and operation of

bicycle and pedestrian transportation

system and facilities which are

appropriately interconnected with other

modes;

(6) Be coordinated with the

metropolitan transportation plans

required under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49

U.S.C. 5303;

(7) Reference, summarize or contain

any applicable short range planning

studies, strategic planning and/or policy

studies, transportation needs studies,

management system reports and any

statements of policies, goals and

objectives regarding issues, such as,

transportation, economic development,

housing, social and environmental

effects, energy, etc., that were significant

to development of the plan;

(8) Reference, summarize or contain

information on the availability of

financial (including as appropriate an

optional financial plan consistent with

23 CFR 1410.214(d)) and other resources

needed to carry out the plan; and

(9) Contain strategies that ensure

timely compliance with the applicable

SIP.

(b) The following entities shall be

involved in the development of the

statewide transportation plan:

(1) MPOs shall be involved on a

cooperation basis for the portions of the

plan affecting metropolitan planning

areas;

(2) Indian Tribal Governments and the

Secretary of the Interior shall be

involved on a consultation basis for the

portions of the plan affecting areas of

the State under the jurisdiction of an

Indian Tribal Government;

(3) Federal lands managing agencies

shall be involved on a consultation basis

for the portions of the program affecting

areas of the State under their

jurisdiction;

(4) Affected local officials with

responsibility for transportation shall be

involved on a consultation basis for the

portions of the plan in nonmetropolitan

areas of the State.

(c) In developing the statewide

transportation plan, the State shall:

(1) Provide for participation by

interested parties as required under

§ 1410.212;

(2) Provide for consideration and

analysis as appropriate of specified

factors as required under § 1410.208;

(3) Provide for coordination as

required under § 1410.210; and

(4) Identify transportation strategies

necessary to efficiently serve the

mobility needs of people.

(d) The statewide transportation plan

may include a financial plan that:

(1) Demonstrates how the adopted

transportation plan can be

implemented;

(2) Indicates resources from public

and private sources that are reasonably

expected to be made available to carry

out the plan;

(3) Recommends any additional

financing strategies for needed projects

and programs;

(4) Might include, for illustrative

purposes, additional projects that would

be included in the adopted

transportation plan if reasonable

additional resources beyond those

identified in the financial plan were

available. The State is not required to

select any project from the illustrative

list for implementation, and projects on

the illustrative list cannot be advanced

to implementation without an action by

the Secretary of Transportation on the

STIP.

(e) The State shall provide and carry

out a mechanism to adopt the plan as

the official statewide transportation

plan.

(f) The plan shall be continually

evaluated and periodically updated, as

appropriate, using the procedures in

this section for development and

establishment of the plan.

§ 1410.216 Content and development of

statewide transportation improvement

program (STIP).

(a) Each State shall develop a

statewide transportation improvement

program for all areas of the State. In case

of difficulties in developing the STIP

portion for a particular area, e.g.,

metropolitan area, Indian Tribal lands,

etc., a partial STIP covering the rest of

the State may be developed. The portion

of the STIP in a metropolitan planning

area (the metropolitan TIP developed

pursuant to subpart C of this part) shall

be developed in cooperation with the

MPO. To assist metropolitan TIP

development the State, the MPO and the

transit operator will cooperatively

develop timely estimates of available

Federal and State funds which are to be

utilized in developing the metropolitan

TIP. Metropolitan planning area TIPs

shall be included without modification

in the STIP, directly or by reference,

once approved by the MPO and the

Governor and after needed conformity

findings are made. Metropolitan TIPs in

nonattainment and maintenance areas

are subject to the FHWA and the FTA

conformity findings before their

inclusion in the STIP. In nonattainment

and maintenance areas outside

metropolitan planning areas, Federal

findings of conformity must be made

prior to placing projects in the STIP.

The State shall notify the appropriate

MPO, local jurisdictions, Federal land

management agency, Indian Tribal

Government, etc., when a TIP including

projects under the jurisdiction of the

agency has been included in the STIP.

All title 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter

53 fund recipients will share

information as projects in the STIP are

implemented. The Governor shall

provide for participation of interested

parties in development of the STIP as

required by § 1410.212.

(b) The following entities shall be

involved in the development of the

statewide transportation improvement

program:

(1) MPOs shall be involved on a

cooperation basis for the portions of the

program affecting metropolitan planning

areas;

(2) Indian Tribal Governments and the

Secretary of the Interior shall be

involved on a consultation basis for the

portions of the program affecting areas

of the State under the jurisdiction of an

Indian Tribal Government;

(3) Federal lands managing agencies

shall be involved on a consultation basis

for the portions of the program affecting

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33947

areas of the State under their

jurisdiction; and

(4) Affected local officials with

responsibility for transportation shall be

involved on a consultation basis for the

portions of the program in

nonmetropolitan areas of the State.

(c) The STIP shall:

(1) Include a list of priority

transportation projects proposed to be

carried out in the first three years of the

STIP. Since each TIP is approved by the

Governor, the TIP priorities will dictate

STIP priorities for each individual

metropolitan area. As a minimum, the

lists shall group the projects that are to

be undertaken in each of the years, e.g.,

year 1, year 2, year 3;

(2) Cover a period of not less than

three years, but may at State discretion

cover a longer period. If the STIP covers

more than three years, the projects in

the additional years will be considered

by the FHWA and the FTA only as

informational;

(3) Contain only projects consistent

with the statewide plan developed

under § 1410.214;

(4) In nonattainment and maintenance

areas, contain only transportation

projects that have been found to

conform, or which come from programs

that conform, in accordance with the

requirements contained in the EPA

conformity regulation 40 CFR parts 51

and 93;

(5) Contain a project, or an identified

phase of a project, only if full funding

can reasonably be anticipated to be

available for the project within the time

period contemplated for completion of

the project. The STIP financial

constraint will be demonstrated and

maintained by year and the STIP shall

include sufficient financial information

to demonstrate which projects are to be

implemented using current revenues

and which projects are to be

implemented using proposed revenue

sources while the system as a whole is

being adequately operated and

maintained. In nonattainment and

maintenance areas, projects included in

the first two years of the current STIP/

TIP shall be limited to those for which

funds are available or committed. In the

case of proposed funding sources,

strategies for ensuring their availability

shall be identified, preferably in an

optional financial plan consistent with

§ 1410.216(f);

(6) Contain all capital and non-capital

transportation projects (including

transportation enhancements, safety,

Federal lands highways projects, trails

projects, pedestrian walkways, and

bicycle transportation facilities), or

identified phases of transportation

projects, proposed for funding under 49

U.S.C. Chapter 53 and/or title 23,

U.S.C., excluding:

(i) Metropolitan planning projects

funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49

U.S.C. 5303;

(ii) State planning and research

projects funded under 23 U.S.C.

307(c)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5313(b)(except

those funded with national highway

system (NHS), surface transportation

program (STP) and minimum guarantee

funds that the State and MPO for a

metropolitan area agree should be in the

TIP and consequently must be in the

STIP); and

(iii) Emergency relief projects (except

those involving substantial functional,

locational or capacity changes);

(7) Contain all regionally significant

transportation projects requiring an

action by the FHWA or the FTA

whether or not the projects are to be

funded with title 23, U.S.C., or 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 53 funds, and/or selected funds

administered by the Federal Railroad

Administration, e.g., addition of an

interchange to the Interstate System

with State, local and/or private funds,

high priority or demonstration projects

not funded under title 23, U.S.C., or 49

U.S.C. Chapter 53. (The STIP should

include all regionally significant

transportation projects proposed to be

funded with Federal funds other than

those administered by the FHWA or the

FTA. It should also include, for

information purposes, if appropriate

and cited in any TIPs, all regionally

significant projects, to be funded with

non-Federal funds);

(8) Identify ITS projects funded with

highway trust fund monies, including as

appropriate an integration strategy,

consistent with the statewide plan.

Where ITS projects are identified that fit

the provisions of § 1410.322(b)(11), an

agreement shall exist between

participating agencies in the project area

that will govern their implementation.

(9) Include for each project or phase

the following:

(i) Sufficient descriptive material (i.e.,

type of work, termini, length, etc.) to

identify the project or phase;

(ii) Estimated total project cost, which

may extend beyond the three years of

the STIP;

(iii) The amount of funds proposed to

be obligated during each program year

for the project or phase;

(iv) For the first year, the proposed

category of Federal funds and source(s)

of non-Federal funds for the project or

phase;

(v) For the second and third years, the

likely category of Federal funds and

sources of non-Federal funds for the

project or phase;

(vi) Identification of the agencies

responsible for carrying out the project

or phase; and

(10) For non-metropolitan areas,

include in the first year only those

projects which have been selected in

accordance with the requirements in

§ 1410.224(c).

(d) Projects that are not considered to

be of appropriate scale for individual

identification in a given program year

may be grouped by function, work type,

and/or geographic area using the

applicable classifications under 23 CFR

1420.311(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part

93. In addition, projects funded under

chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. may be grouped

by funding category and shown as one

line item, unless they are determined to

be regionally significant.

(e) Projects in any of the first three

years of the STIP may be moved to any

other of the first three years of the STIP

subject to the requirements of

§ 1410.224.

(f) The statewide transportation

improvement program may include a

financial plan that:

(1) Demonstrates how the adopted

transportation improvement program

can be implemented;

(2) Indicates resources from public

and private sources that are reasonably

expected to be made available to carry

out the program;

(3) Recommends any additional

financing strategies for needed projects

and programs;

(4) Might include, for illustrative

purposes, additional projects that would

be included in the transportation

improvement program if reasonable

additional resources beyond those

identified in the financial plan were

available. The State is not required to

select any project from the illustrative

list for implementation, and projects on

the illustrative list cannot be advanced

to implementation without an action by

the Secretary on the STIP.

(g) The STIP may be modified at any

time under procedures agreed to by the

cooperating parties consistent with the

procedures established in this section

(for STIP development), in § 1410.212

(for interested party participation) and

in § 1410.222 (for the FHWA and the

FTA approval).

§ 1410.218 Relation of planning and

project development processes.

(a) Depending upon its character and

the level of detail desired as determined

by the planning process participants,

the statewide planning process products

and analyses can be utilized as input to

subsequent project development. The

process described in § 1410.318 relating

planning and project development may

33948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

be utilized at the discretion of the

statewide transportation planning

process participants in nonmetropolitan areas. Analyses performed

within the statewide planning process

to support project development lead to

a statement of purpose and need for

regionally significant proposed

transportation investments.

(b) The results of analyses conducted

under paragraph (a) of this section, at

the option of the planning participants,

may:

(1) Be documented as part of the plan

development record for consideration in

subsequent project development

actions;

(2) Serve as input to the NEPA

process required under 23 CFR 1420;

(3) Provide a basis, in part, for project

level decision making; and

(4) Be proposed for consideration as

support for actions and decisions by

federal agencies other than US DOT;

(c) To the extent feasible, Federal,

State, and local agencies with

subsequent project level responsibilities

for investments included in a

transportation plan, shall be involved in

planning analyses and studies as a

means to reduce subsequent project

development analyses and studies,

support decisionmaking, and provide

early identification of key concerns for

later consideration and analysis as

needed. Where the processes available

under § 1410.318(f) are invoked, the

FHWA and the FTA shall be consulted.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be

interpreted as requiring formal NEPA

review of or action on plans and TIPs.

(e) The FHWA and the FTA project

level actions, including, but not limited

to issuance of a categorical exclusion,

finding of no significant impact or a

final environmental impact statement

under 23 CFR 1420, right of way

acquisition (with the exception of

hardship and protective buying actions),

interstate interchange approvals, high

occupancy vehicle (HOV) conversions,

funding of ITS projects, project

conformity analyses and approval of

final design and construction and transit

vehicle acquisition may not be

completed unless the proposed project

action is included in a STIP which

meets the requirements of this subpart.

None of these project level actions can

occur in nonattainment and

maintenance areas unless the project

conforms according to the requirements

of the EPA’s conformity rule (40 CFR

parts 51 and 93).

§ 1410.220 Funding of planning process.

Funds provided under 49 U.S.C. 5303,

5307, 5309, 5311, and 5313(b) and 23

U.S.C. 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), 104(f), 105,

and 505(a) may be used to accomplish

activities in this subpart.

§ 1410.222 Approvals, self-certification

and findings.

(a) At least every two years, each State

shall submit the entire proposed STIP,

and amendments as necessary,

concurrently to the FHWA and the FTA

for joint approval. The State shall certify

that the transportation planning process

is being carried out in accordance with

all applicable requirements of:

(1) 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, 49 U.S.C.

5303–5305 and 5323(k), and this part;

(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d–1)

and implementing regulations (49 CFR

part 21 and 23 CFR part 230);

(3) Section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid

Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. 324);

(4) The Older Americans Act of 1965,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); and

(5) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and

implementing regulations (49 CFR part

35);

(6) Section 1101 of the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public

Law 105–178) regarding the

involvement of disadvantaged business

enterprises in the FHWA and the FTA

funded projects (sec. 105(f), Public Law

97–424, 96 Stat. 2100; 49 CFR part 23);

(7) The provisions of the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.

12101 et seq.) and U.S. DOT regulations

‘‘Transportation for Individuals with

Disabilities’’ (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and

38);

(8) The provisions of 49 CFR part 20

regarding restrictions on influencing

certain Federal activities;

(9) In States containing nonattainment

and maintenance areas, sections 174

and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c)

and (d)); and

(10) all other applicable provisions of

Federal law.

(b) The FHWA and the FTA

Administrators, in consultation with,

where applicable, Federal land

managing agencies, will review the STIP

or amendment and jointly make a

finding (based on self-certifications

made by the State and appropriate

reviews established and conducted by

FTA and FHWA) as to the extent the

projects in the STIP are based on a

planning process that meets or

substantially meets the requirements of

title 23, U.S.C., 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53

and subparts A, B, and C of this part.

(1) If, upon review, the FHWA and the

FTA Administrators jointly find that the

planning process through which the

STIP was developed meets the

requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and these

regulations (including subpart C where

a metropolitan TIP is involved), they

will unconditionally approve the STIP.

(2) If the FHWA and the FTA

administrators jointly find that the

planning process through which the

STIP was developed substantially meets

the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and

these regulations (including subpart C

where a metropolitan TIP is involved),

they will act on the STIP or amendment

as follows:

(i) Joint conditional approval of the

STIP subject to certain corrective

actions being taken;

(ii) Joint conditional approval of the

STIP as the basis for approval of

identified categories of projects; and/or

(iii) Under special circumstances,

joint conditional approval of a partial

STIP covering only a portion of the

State.

(3) If, upon review, the FHWA and the

FTA Administrators jointly find that the

STIP or amendment does not

substantially meet the requirements of

23 U.S.C. 135 and this part for any

identified categories of projects, they

will not approve the STIP or

amendment.

(c) The joint approval period for a

new STIP or amended STIP shall not

exceed two years. Where the State

demonstrates, in writing, that

extenuating circumstances will delay

the submittal of a new STIP or amended

STIP for approval, the FHWA and the

FTA will consider and take appropriate

action on requests to extend the

approval beyond two years for all or

part of the STIP for a limited period of

time, not to exceed 180 days. Where the

request involves projects in a

metropolitan planning area(s), the

affected MPO(s) must concur in the

request and if the delay was due to the

development and approval of the TIP,

the affected MPO(s) must provide

supporting information, in writing, for

the request. If nonattainment and/or

maintenance areas are involved, a

request for an extension cannot be

granted.

(d) The FHWA and the FTA will

notify the State of actions taken under

this section.

(e) Where necessary in order to

maintain or establish operations, the

Federal Transit Administrator and/or

the Federal Highway Administrator may

approve operating assistance for specific

projects or programs funded under 49

U.S.C. 5307 and 5311 even though the

projects or programs may not be

included in an approved STIP.

§ 1410.224 Project selection.

(a) Except as provided in

§ § 1410.222(e) and 1410.216(c)(6), only

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33949

projects included in the federally

approved STIP shall be eligible for

funds administered by the FHWA or the

FTA.

(b) In metropolitan planning areas,

transportation projects requiring 23

U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funds

administered by the FHWA or the FTA

shall be selected from the approved TIP/

STIP in accordance with procedures

established pursuant to the project

selection portion of the metropolitan

planning regulation in subpart C of this

part.

(c) Outside metropolitan planning

areas, transportation projects

undertaken on the National Highway

System with title 23 funds and under

the bridge and Interstate maintenance

programs shall be selected from the

approved STIP by the State in

consultation with the affected local

officials. Federal lands highway projects

shall be selected from the approved

STIP in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204.

Other transportation projects

undertaken with funds administered by

the FHWA shall be selected from the

approved STIP by the State in

cooperation with the affected local

officials, and projects undertaken with

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funds shall be

selected from the approved STIP by the

State in cooperation with the

appropriate affected local officials and

transit operators.

(d) The projects in the first year of an

approved STIP shall constitute an

‘‘agreed to’’ list of projects for

subsequent scheduling and

implementation. No further action

under paragraphs (b) or (c) of this

section is required for the implementing

agency to proceed with these projects

except that if appropriated Federal

funds available are significantly less

than the authorized amounts,

§ 1410.332(c) provides for a revised list

of ‘‘agreed to’’ projects to be developed

upon the request of the State, the MPO,

or transit operators. If an implementing

agency wishes to proceed with a project

in the second and third year of the STIP,

the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c)

of this section or as agreed to by the

parties under paragraph (e) of this

section must be used.

(e) Expedited procedures which

provide for the advancement of projects

from the second or third years of the

STIP may be used if agreed to by all the

parties involved in the selection

process.

§ 1410.226 Applicability of NEPA to

transportation planning and programming.

Any decision by the Secretary

concerning a transportation plan or

transportation improvement program

developed through the processes

provided for in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135

and 49 U.S.C. 5303 through 5305, shall

not be considered to be a Federal action

subject to review under NEPA.

Subpart C—Metropolitan

Transportation Planning and

Programming

§ 1410.300 Purpose of planning process.

The purpose of this subpart is to

implement 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C.

5303–5306 which require that a

Metropolitan Planning Organization

(MPO) be designated for each urbanized

area (UZA) and that the metropolitan

area have a continuing, cooperative, and

comprehensive transportation planning

process that results in plans and

programs that consider all

transportation modes and support

metropolitan community development

and social goals. The transportation

plan and program shall facilitate the

development, management and

operation of an integrated, intermodal

transportation system that enables the

safe, efficient, economic movement of

people and goods.

§ 1410.302 Organizations and processes

affected by planning requirements.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to agencies responsible for

satisfying the requirements of the

transportation planning, programming,

and project development processes in

metropolitan planning areas pursuant to

23 U.S.C. 134.

§ 1410.304 Definitions.

Except as otherwise provided in

subpart A of this part, terms defined in

23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302 are

used in this part as so defined.

§ 1410.306 What is a Metropolitan

Planning Organization and how is it

created?

(a) Designations of metropolitan

planning organizations (MPOs) made

after December 18, 1991, shall be by

agreement among the Governor(s) and

units of general purpose local

governments representing 75 percent of

the affected metropolitan population

(including the central city or cities as

defined by the Bureau of the Census), or

in accordance with procedures

established by applicable State or local

law. A single metropolitan planning

organization, to the extent possible,

shall be designated to serve a

metropolitan planning area containing:

(1) A single UZA, or

(2) Multiple UZAs that are contiguous

with each other or located within the

same Metropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA).

(b) The designation or redesignation

shall clearly identify the policy body

that is the forum for cooperative

decision making that will be taking the

required approval actions as the MPO.

(c) To the extent possible, the MPO

designated should be established under

specific State legislation, State enabling

legislation, or by interstate compact, and

shall have authority to carry out

metropolitan transportation planning.

(d) Nothing in this subpart shall be

deemed to prohibit an MPO from

utilizing the staff resources of other

agencies to carry out selected elements

of the planning process.

(e) Existing MPO designations remain

valid until a new MPO is redesignated.

Redesignation is accomplished by the

Governor and local units of government

representing 75 percent of the

population in the area served by the

existing MPO (the central city(ies) must

be among those desiring to revoke the

MPO designation). If the Governor and

local officials decide to redesignate an

existing MPO, but do not formally

revoke the existing MPO designation,

the existing MPO designation remains

in effect until a new MPO is formally

designated.

(f) Redesignation of an MPO in a

multistate metropolitan area requires

the approval of the Governor of each

State and local officials representing 75

percent of the population in the entire

metropolitan planning area. The local

officials in the central city(ies) must be

among those agreeing to the

redesignation.

(g) Redesignation of an MPO covering

more than one UZA requires the

approval of the Governor(s) and local

officials representing 75 percent of the

population in the metropolitan planning

area covered by the current MPO. The

local officials in the central city(ies) in

each urbanized area must be among

those agreeing to the redesignation.

(h) The voting membership of an MPO

policy body designated/redesignated

subsequent to December 18, 1991, and

serving a TMA, must include

representation of local elected officials,

officials of agencies that administer or

operate major modes or systems of

transportation, e.g., transit operators,

sponsors of major local airports,

maritime ports, rail operators, etc.

(including all transportation agencies

that were included in the MPO on June

1, 1991), and appropriate State officials.

Where agencies that operate other major

modes of transportation do not already

have a voice on existing MPOs, the

MPOs (in cooperation with the States)

are encouraged to provide such agencies

a voice in the decision making process,

including representation/membership

33950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

on the policy body and/or other

appropriate committees. Further, where

appropriate, existing MPOs should

increase the representation of local

elected officials on the policy board and

other committees as a means for

encouraging their greater involvement

in MPO processes. Adding such

representation to an MPO will not, in

itself, constitute a redesignation action.

(i) Where the metropolitan planning

area boundary for a previously

designated MPO needs to be expanded,

the membership on the MPO policy

body and other committees, should be

reviewed to ensure that the added area

has appropriate representation.

(j) Adding membership (e.g., local

elected officials and operators of major

modes or systems of transportation, or

representatives of newly urbanized

areas) to the policy body or expansion

of the metropolitan planning area does

not automatically require redesignation

of the MPO. This may be done without

a formal redesignation. The Governor

and MPO shall review the previous

MPO designation, State and local law,

MPO bylaws, etc., to determine if this

can be accomplished without a formal

redesignation. If redesignation is

considered necessary, the existing MPO

will remain in effect until a new MPO

is formally designated or the existing

designation is formally revoked in

accordance with the procedures of this

section.

§ 1410.308 Establishing the geographic

boundaries for metropolitan transportation

planning areas.

(a) The metropolitan planning area

boundary shall, as a minimum, cover

the UZA(s) and the contiguous

geographic area(s) likely to become

urbanized within, at a minimum, the

twenty year forecast period covered by

the transportation plan described in

§ 1410.322.

(1) For existing MPOs, unless

modified by agreement of the Governor

and the MPO, the planning area

boundaries shall be those in existence as

of June 9, 1998. For MPOs designated

after June 9, 1998, the boundaries shall

be those agreed to by the Governor and

local officials as indicated in

§ 1410.306(a).

(2) The boundary may encompass the

entire metropolitan statistical area or

consolidated metropolitan statistical

area, as defined by the Bureau of the

Census.

(3) For new MPOs, the planning area

boundary shall reflect agreements

between the MPO and the State DOT

regarding the relationship of the

metropolitan planning area boundary to

any nonattainment and maintenance

area within its designated limits or

contiguous nonattainment or

maintenance area excluded from the

boundary.

(b) The metropolitan planning area for

a new UZA served by an existing or new

MPO shall be established in accordance

with these criteria. The current planning

area boundaries for previously

designated UZAs shall be reviewed and

modified if necessary to comply with

these criteria.

(c) In addition to the criteria in

paragraph (a) of this section, the

planning areas currently in use for all

transportation modes should be

reviewed before establishing the

metropolitan planning area boundary.

Where appropriate, adjustments should

be made to reflect the most

comprehensive boundary to foster an

effective planning process that ensures

connectivity between modes and their

operational integration, and promotes

efficient overall transportation

investment strategies in support of

mobility and accessibility.

(d) Approval of metropolitan planning

area boundaries by the FHWA and/or

the FTA is not required. However,

metropolitan planning area boundary

maps must be submitted to the FHWA

and the FTA after their approval by the

MPO and the Governor and be made

publicly available.

(e) The STP funds suballocated to

urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in

population shall not be utilized for

projects outside the metropolitan

planning area boundary.

§ 1410.310 Agreements among

organizations involved in the planning

process.

(a) The responsibilities for

cooperatively carrying out

transportation planning and

programming shall be clearly identified

in an agreement or memorandum of

understanding among the State(s),

operators of publicly owned mass

transit, and the MPO.

(b) Where project development

activities are conducted under the

planning process, they shall be

documented in an agreement between

the MPO and the applicable project

sponsor addressing, at a minimum, the

provisions of § 1410.318.

(c) In nonattainment or maintenance

areas, if the MPO is not designated as

the agency responsible for air quality

planning under section 174 of the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), there shall be

an agreement between the MPO and the

designated agency describing their

respective roles and responsibilities for

air quality related transportation

planning.

(d) Where the parties involved agree,

the requirement for agreements

specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)

of this section may be satisfied by

including the responsibilities and

procedures for carrying out a

cooperative process in the unified

planning work program or a prospectus.

(e) If the metropolitan planning area

does not include the entire

nonattainment or maintenance area,

there shall be an agreement among the

State department of transportation, State

air quality agency, affected local

agencies, and the MPO describing the

process for cooperative planning and

analysis of all projects outside the

metropolitan planning area but within

the nonattainment or maintenance area.

The agreement must indicate how the

total transportation related emissions for

the nonattainment or maintenance area,

including areas both within and outside

the metropolitan planning area, will be

treated for the purposes of determining

conformity in accordance with the U.S.

EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR

parts 51 and 93). The agreement shall

address policy mechanisms for

resolving conflicts concerning

transportation related emissions that

may arise between the metropolitan

planning area and the portion of the

nonattainment or maintenance area

outside the metropolitan planning area.

Proposals to exclude a portion of the

nonattainment or maintenance area

from the planning area boundary shall

be coordinated with the FHWA, the

FTA, the EPA, and the State air quality

agency before a final boundary decision

is made for the metropolitan planning

area.

(f) Where more than one MPO has

authority within a metropolitan

planning area, a nonattainment or

maintenance area, and/or in the case of

adjoining metropolitan planning areas,

there shall be an agreement between the

State department(s) of transportation

and the MPOs describing how the

processes and projects will be

coordinated to assure the development

of an overall transportation plan for the

planning area(s). In metropolitan

planning areas that are nonattainment or

maintenance areas, the agreement shall

include State and local air quality

agencies, and be consistent with the

provisions of § 1410.312(c). The

agreement shall address policy

mechanisms for resolving potential

conflicts that may arise between the

MPOs, e.g., issues related to the

exclusion of a portion of the

nonattainment area from the planning

area boundary.

(g) Where the planning process

develops an ITS Integration Strategy

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33951

under the provisions of

§ 1410.322(b)(11), there shall be an

agreement among the MPO, the State

DOT, the transit operator and other

agencies as described in the ITS

Integration Strategy. This agreement

shall address policy and operational

issues that will affect the successful

implementation of the ITS Integration

Strategy, including at a minimum ITS

project interoperability, utilization of

ITS related standards, and the routine

operation of the projects identified in

the ITS Integration Strategy;

(h) To the extent possible, a single

cooperative agreement containing the

understandings required by paragraphs

(a) through (c) of this section among the

State(s), the MPO, publicly owned

operators of mass transportation

services, and air quality agencies may be

developed. Where the participating

planning organizations desire, they may

further consolidate agreements required

by paragraphs (d) through (g) of this

section with those addressed in

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this

section.

(i) For all requirements specified in

paragraphs (a) through (h) of this

section, existing agreements shall be

reviewed by the MPO, the State DOT

and the transit operator for compliance

and reaffirmed or modified as necessary

to ensure participation by all

appropriate modes.

§ 1410.312 Planning process

organizational relationships.

(a) The MPO in cooperation with the

State and with operators of publicly

owned transit services shall be

responsible for carrying out the

metropolitan transportation planning

process. The MPO, the State and transit

operator(s) shall cooperatively

determine their mutual responsibilities

in the conduct of the planning process.

They shall cooperatively develop the

unified planning work program,

transportation plan, and transportation

improvement program specified in

§§ 1410.314 through 1410.332. In

addition, the development of the plan

and TIP shall be coordinated with other

providers of transportation, e.g.,

sponsors of regional airports, maritime

port operators, rail freight operators, and

where appropriate, planning agencies in

Mexico and/or Canada.

(b) The MPO shall approve the

metropolitan transportation plan, plan

amendments and plan updates. The

MPO and the Governor shall approve

the metropolitan transportation

improvement program and any

amendments.

(c) In nonattainment or maintenance

areas:

(1) The transportation and air quality

planning processes shall be coordinated;

(2) TCMs proposed for FHWA and

FTA funding and/or approvals shall

come from a plan and TIP that fully

meet the requirements of this subpart

(new TCMs authorized to proceed

during a conformity lapse will meet the

requirements of this subpart if they are

included in an interim plan and

program and approved into a SIP with

emission reduction benefits); and

(3) MPOs shall participate in the

development of motor vehicle emissions

budgets, inventories and other

transportation related air quality

activities undertaken to develop SIPs to

the extent required by the Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. 7504).

(d) In nonattainment or maintenance

areas for transportation related

pollutants, the MPO shall not approve

any transportation plan or program

which does not conform with the SIP,

as determined in accordance with the

U.S. EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR

parts 51 and 93).

(e) If more than one MPO has

authority in a metropolitan planning

area (including multi-State metropolitan

planning areas) or in an area which is

designated as nonattainment or

maintenance for transportation related

pollutants, the MPOs and the

Governor(s) shall cooperatively

establish the boundaries of the

metropolitan planning area (addressing

the required twenty year planning

horizon and relationship to the

nonattainment or maintenance areas)

and the respective jurisdictional

responsibilities of each MPO. The MPOs

shall consult with each other and the

State(s) to assure that plans and

transportation improvement programs

are coordinated for the entire

metropolitan planning area, including,

but not limited to, coordinated data

collection, analysis and plan

development. Alternatively, a single

plan and/or TIP for the entire

metropolitan area may be developed

jointly by the MPOs in cooperation with

their planning partners. Coordination

efforts shall be documented in

subsequent transmittals of the unified

planning work program (UPWP) and

various planning products (the plan,

TIP, etc.) to the State(s), the FHWA, and

the FTA.

(f) The FTA and the FHWA must

designate as transportation management

areas all UZAs over 200,000 population

as determined by the most recent

decennial census. The TMAs so

designated and those designated

subsequently by the FTA and the FHWA

(including those designated upon

request of the MPO and the Governor)

must comply with the special

requirements applicable to such areas

regarding congestion management

systems, project selection, and planning

certification. The TMA designation

applies to the entire metropolitan

planning area boundary. If a

metropolitan planning area

encompasses a TMA and other UZA(s),

the designation applies to the entire

metropolitan planning area regardless of

the population of constituent UZAs.

(g) In TMAs, the congestion

management system shall be developed

as part of the metropolitan

transportation planning process.

(h) The State shall cooperatively

participate in the development of

metropolitan transportation plans and

metropolitan plans shall be coordinated

with the statewide transportation plan.

The relationship of the statewide

transportation plan and the

metropolitan plan is specified in

subpart B of this part.

(i) Where a metropolitan planning

area includes Federal public lands and/

or Indian Tribal lands, the affected

Federal agencies and Indian Tribal

Governments shall be consulted in the

development of transportation plans

and programs.

(j) Discretionary grants awarded by

the FHWA and the FTA under section

1221 of the TEA–21 (23 U.S.C. 101 note)

(Transportation and Community and

System Preservation Pilot Program),

sections 1118 and 1119 of the TEA–21

(Borders and Corridors) and section

3037 (49 U.S.C. 5309 note) (Access to

Jobs) shall be included in the

appropriate metropolitan plan and

program, except where these funds are

utilized for planning and/or research

activities. Applicants shall coordinate

with the appropriate MPO to ensure that

such projects are consistent with the

provisions of this subpart. Where

planning and research activities are

funded under the Transportation and

Community and System Preservation

Pilot Program or the Borders and

Corridors Program, they shall be

identified in the Unified Planning Work

Program as identified at § 1410.314.

§ 1410.314 Planning tasks and unified

work program.

(a) The MPO(s) in cooperation with

the State and operators of publicly

owned transit shall develop unified

planning work programs (UPWPs) that

meet the requirements of 23 CFR part

420, subpart A, and:

(1) Discuss the planning priorities

facing the metropolitan planning area

and describe all metropolitan

transportation and transportationrelated air quality planning activities

33952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

anticipated within the area during the

next one or two year period, regardless

of funding sources or agencies

conducting activities, in sufficient detail

to indicate who will perform the work,

the schedule for completing it and the

products that will be produced; and

(2) Document planning activities to be

performed with funds provided under

title 23 and Chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C.

(b) Arrangements may be made with

the FHWA and the FTA to combine the

UPWP requirements with the work

program for other Federal sources of

planning funds.

(c) In areas not designated as TMAs

and which are in attainment for air

quality purposes, the MPO in

cooperation with the State and transit

operator(s), with the approval of the

FHWA and the FTA, may prepare a

simplified statement of work, in lieu of

a UPWP, that describes who will

perform the work and the work that will

be accomplished using Federal funds

(administered under title 23 U.S.C. and

Chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C. If a

simplified statement of work is used, it

may be submitted as part of the

statewide planning work program, in

accordance with 23 CFR part 420.

(d) MPOs, which include nonattainment or maintenance areas, should

consult with the US EPA and state/local

air agencies in the development of their

UPWP regarding appropriate tasks to

support attainment of air quality

standards.

§ 1410.316 Transportation planning

process and plan development.

(a) Each metropolitan planning

process shall provide for consideration

of projects and strategies that will:

(1) Support the economic vitality of

the metropolitan planning area,

especially by enabling global

competitiveness, productivity, and

efficiency;

(2) Increase the safety and security of

the transportation system for motorized

and non-motorized users;

(3) Increase the accessibility and

mobility options available to people and

for freight;

(4) Protect and enhance the

environment, promote energy

conservation, and improve quality of

life;

(5) Enhance the integration and

connectivity of the transportation

system, across and between modes, for

people and freight;

(6) Promote efficient system

management and operation; and

(7) Emphasize the efficient

preservation of the existing

transportation system.

(b) In addition, the metropolitan

transportation planning process shall

develop and adopt 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 plans and TIPs. To attain

these objectives the process as

developed shall meet the requirements

and criteria as follows:

(1) Require a minimum public

comment period of 45 days before the

public involvement process is initially

adopted or revised;

(2) Provide timely information about

transportation issues and processes

(including but not limited to initiation

of plan and TIP updates, revisions and/

or other modifications and the general

structure of the planning process) to

citizens, affected public agencies,

representatives of transportation agency

employees, users of public transit,

freight shippers, private providers of

transportation, other interested parties

and segments of the community affected

by transportation plans, programs and

projects (including but not limited to

central city and other local jurisdiction

concerns);

(3) Provide reasonable public access

to technical and policy information

used in the development of plans and

TIPs and open public meetings where

matters related to the Federal-aid

highway and transit programs are being

considered;

(4) Require adequate public notice of

public involvement activities and time

for public review and comment at key

decision points, including, but not

limited to, approval of plans and TIPs

(in nonattainment areas classified as

serious and above, the comment period

shall be at least 30 days for the plan, TIP

and major amendment(s));

(5) Demonstrate explicit

consideration, recognition and feedback

to public input received during the

planning and program development

processes, including responses to input

received from minority, elderly, lowincome, and persons with disabilities

populations;

(6) Seek out and consider the needs of

those traditionally under served by

existing transportation systems,

including, but not limited to, lowincome, the elderly, persons with

disabilities and minority populations;

(7) When comments are received on

the draft transportation plan or TIP

(including the financial plan) as a result

of the public involvement process or the

interagency consultation process

required under the U.S. EPA conformity

regulations, a summary, analysis, and

report on the disposition of comments

shall be made part of the final plan and

TIP;

(8) If the final transportation plan or

TIP differs significantly from the one

which was made available for public

comment by the MPO and raises new

material issues which interested parties

could not reasonably have foreseen from

the public involvement efforts, an

additional opportunity for public

comment on the revised plan or TIP

shall be made available;

(9) Public involvement processes shall

be periodically reviewed by the MPO in

terms of their effectiveness in assuring

that the process provides full and open

access to all, with specific attention to

the effectiveness of efforts to engage

persons with disabilities, minority

individuals, the elderly and low income

populations;

(10) These procedures will be

reviewed by the FHWA and the FTA

during certification reviews for TMAs,

and as otherwise necessary for all

MPOs, to assure that full and open

access is provided to MPO decision

making processes;

(11) Metropolitan public involvement

processes shall be coordinated with

statewide public involvement processes

and with project development public

involvement processes wherever

possible to enhance public

consideration of the issues, plans, and

programs and reduce redundancies and

costs.

(c) Transportation plan development

and plans shall be consistent with Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d–1) and

implementing regulations (49 CFR part

21 and 23 CFR part 230); section 162(a)

of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973

(23 U.S.C. 324); the Older Americans

Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C.

6101); the Americans With Disabilities

Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–336, 104

Stat. 327, as amended) and

implementing regulations (49 CFR parts

27, 37, and 38); section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.

794) and implementing regulations (49

CFR part 35), which ensure that no

person shall, on the grounds of race,

color, sex, national origin, age, or

physical handicap, be excluded from

participation in, be denied benefits of,

or be otherwise subjected to

discrimination under any program or

activity receiving Federal assistance

from the United States Department of

Transportation. Consistency shall be

demonstrated through:

(1) An assessment covering the entire

metropolitan planning area, including at

a minimum the following:

(i) A geographic and demographic

profile of the metropolitan planning

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33953

area that identifies the low-income and

minority, and where appropriate, the

elderly and persons with disabilities

components of this profile,

(ii) The transportation services

available to and planned for these

segments of the metropolitan planning

area’s population, and

(iii) Any disproportionately high and

adverse environmental impacts,

including interrelated social and

economic impacts, affecting these

populations, consistent with the

provisions of Executive Order 12898 as

implemented through U.S. DOT Order

5610.2 and FHWA Order 6640.23.

Adverse effects can include a denial of

or a reduction in benefits;

(2) Consideration of comments

received during public involvement

efforts (consistent with the provisions of

paragraph (b) of this section to ensure

that expressed concerns of the elderly,

low-income individuals, minority

individuals and persons with

disabilities, have been addressed during

plan and program decision making;

(3) Identification of prior and planned

efforts to address any disproportionately

high and adverse effects that are found;

(4) The results of paragraphs (c)(1),

(2), and (3) of this section will be

documented in a manner to permit

public review during appropriate

project development activities. In

accordance with Executive Order 12898,

DOT Order 5610.2, and FHWA Order

6640.23, nothing in this subpart is

intended to nor shall create any right to

judicial review of any action taken by

the agencies, their officers or recipients

under this subpart to comply with such

orders.

(d) The transportation planning

process shall identify actions necessary

to comply with the Americans With

Disabilities Act of 1990, U.S. DOT

regulations ‘‘Transportation for

Individuals With Disabilities’’ (49 CFR

parts 27, 37, and 38) and section 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and

implementing regulations (49 CFR part

35).

(e) The transportation plan

development process shall provide for

the involvement of traffic, ridesharing,

parking, transportation safety and

enforcement agencies; commuter rail

operators; airport and port authorities;

toll authorities; appropriate private

transportation providers and where

appropriate city officials; freight

shippers; transit users.

(f) The transportation planning

process shall provide for the

involvement of local, State, and Federal

environmental resource and permit

agencies as appropriate.

(g) The transportation planning

process shall provide for the

involvement of Indian Tribal

Governments and the Secretary of

Interior on a consultation basis for the

portions of the plan affecting areas

under the jurisdiction of an Indian

Tribal Government.

(h) Simplified planning procedures

may be proposed in non-TMAs which

are in attainment for air quality

purposes. The FHWA and the FTA shall

review the proposed procedures for

consistency with the requirements of

this section.

(i) The metropolitan transportation

planning process shall include

preparation of technical and other

reports to assure documentation of the

development, refinement, and update of

the transportation plan. The reports

shall be reasonably available to

interested parties, consistent with

paragraph (b) of this section.

(j) The metropolitan planning process

should provide a forum to coordinate all

federally funded non-emergency

transportation services within the

metropolitan planning area. Where

coordination processes are developed

within the transportation planning

process, at a minimum they should

address the planning and delivery of

services supporting access to jobs and

reverse commute options, relying where

feasible on existing processes and

procedures.

§ 1410.318 Relation of planning and

project development processes.

(a) In order to coordinate and

streamline the planning and NEPA

processes, the planning process, through

the cooperation of the MPO, the State

DOT and the transit operator, shall

provide the following to the NEPA

process:

(1) An identification of an initial

statement of purpose and need for

transportation investments;

(2) Findings and conclusions

regarding purpose and need,

identification and evaluation of

alternatives studied in planning

activities (including but not limited to

the relevant design concepts and scope

of the proposed action), and

identification of the alternative included

in the plan;

(3) An identification of the planning

documents that provide the basis for

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this

section; and

(4) Formal expressions of policy

support or comment by the planning

process participants on paragraphs (a)(1)

and (a)(2) of this section.

(b) The following sources of

information shall be utilized to satisfy

paragraph (a) of this section at a level of

detail agreed to by the MPO, the State

DOT, and the transit operator:

(1) Inventories of social, economic

and environmental resources and

conditions;

(2) Analyses of economic, social and

environmental consequences;

(3) Evaluation(s) of transportation

benefits, other benefits, costs, and

consequences, at a geographic scale

agreed to by the planning participants,

of alternatives, including but not limited

to the relevant design concepts and

scope of the proposed action;

(4) Data and supporting analyses to

facilitate funding related decisions by

Federal agencies where appropriate or

required, including but not limited to 49

CFR part 611.

(c) The products resulting from

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section

shall be reviewed early in the NEPA

process in accordance with § 1420.201

to determine their appropriate use.

(d) In order to streamline subsequent

project development analyses and

studies, and promote better decision

making, the FTA and the FHWA

strongly encourage all Federal, State,

and local agencies with subsequent

project level responsibilities for

investments included in a

transportation plan to do the following:

(1) Participate in planning analyses

and studies to the extent possible;

(2) Provide early identification of key

concerns for later consideration and

analysis as needed; and

(3) Utilize the sources of information

identified in paragraph (b) of this

section.

(e) The analyses conducted under

paragraph (b)(3) of this section may

serve as the alternatives analysis

required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e) for new

fixed guideway transit systems and

extensions and the information required

under 49 CFR part 611 shall be

generated.

(f) Any decision by the Secretary

concerning a transportation plan or

transportation improvement program

developed in accordance with this part

shall not be considered to be a Federal

action subject to review under NEPA (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). At the discretion of

the MPO, in cooperation with the State

DOT and the transit operator, an

environmental analysis may be

conducted on a transportation plan.

(g) The FHWA and the FTA project

level actions, including but not limited

to issuance of a categorical exclusion,

finding of no significant impact or final

environmental impact statement under

23 CFR part 1420, approval of right of

way acquisition, interstate interchange

approvals, approvals of HOV

33954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

conversions, funding of ITS projects,

final design and construction, and

transit vehicle acquisition, may not be

completed unless the proposed project

is included in a plan and the phase of

the project for which Federal action is

sought is included in the metropolitan

TIP. None of these project-level actions

can occur in nonattainment and

maintenance areas unless the project

conforms according to the requirements

of the US EPA conformity regulation (40

CFR parts 51 and 93).

§ 1410.320 Congestion management

system and planning process.

(a) In TMAs designated as

nonattainment for ozone or carbon

monoxide, Federal funds may not be

programmed for any project that will

result in a significant increase in

carrying capacity for single occupant

vehicles (a new general purpose

highway on a new location or adding

general purpose lanes, with the

exception of safety improvements or the

elimination of bottlenecks) unless the

project results from a congestion

management system (CMS) meeting the

requirements of 23 CFR part 500. Such

projects shall incorporate all reasonably

available strategies to manage the single

occupant vehicle (SOV) facility

effectively (or to facilitate its

management in the future). Other travel

demand reduction and operational

management strategies, as appropriate

for the corridor, but not appropriate for

incorporation into the SOV facility

itself, shall be committed to by the State

and the MPO for implementation in a

timely manner, but no later than the

completion date for the SOV project.

(b) In TMAs, the planning process

must include the development of a CMS

that provides for effective management

of new and existing transportation

facilities through the use of travel

demand reduction and operational

management.

(c) The effectiveness of the congestion

management system in enhancing

transportation investment decisions and

improving the overall efficiency of the

metropolitan area’s transportation

systems and facilities shall be evaluated

periodically, preferably as part of the

metropolitan planning process.

§ 1410.322 Transportation plan content.

(a) The metropolitan transportation

planning process shall include the

development of a transportation plan

addressing at least a twenty year

planning horizon. The plan shall

include both long-range and short-range

strategies/actions, including, but not

limited to, operations and management

activities, that lead to the systematic

development of an integrated

intermodal transportation system that

facilitates the safe and efficient

movement of people and goods in

addressing current and future

transportation demand. The

transportation plan shall be reviewed

and updated every five years in

attainment areas and at least triennially

in nonattainment and maintenance

areas to confirm its validity and its

consistency with current and forecasted

transportation and land use conditions

and trends and to extend the forecast

period. The transportation plan must be

approved by the MPO. Update processes

shall include a mechanism for ensuring

that the MPO, the State DOT and the

transit operator agree that the data

utilized in preparing other existing

modal plans providing input to the

transportation plan are valid and

benchmarked in relation to each other

and the transportation plan. In updating

a plan, the MPO shall base the update

on the latest estimates and assumptions

for population, land use, travel,

employment, congestion, and economic

activity. Reaffirmation or revisions of

metropolitan plan contents and

supporting analyses produced by an

update review require approval by the

MPO.

(b) In addition, the plan shall,

consistent with the following:

(1) Identify the projected

transportation demand of persons and

goods in the metropolitan planning area

over the period of the plan;

(2) Identify adopted management and

operations strategies (e.g., traveler

information, traffic surveillance and

control, incident and emergency

response, freight routing, reconstruction

and work zones management, weather

response, pricing, fare payment

alternatives, public transportation

management, demand management,

alternative routing, telecommuting,

parking management, and intermodal

connectivity) that address the need for

improved system performance and the

delivery of transportation services to

customers under varying conditions;

(3) Identify pedestrian walkway and

bicycle transportation facilities in

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g);

(4) Reflect the consideration given to

the results of the congestion

management system, including in TMAs

that are nonattainment areas for carbon

monoxide and ozone, identification of

SOV projects that result from a

congestion management system that

meets the requirements of 23 CFR part

500;

(5) Assess capital investment and

other measures necessary to preserve

the existing transportation system

(including requirements for operational

improvements, resurfacing, restoration,

and rehabilitation of existing and future

major roadways, as well as operations,

maintenance, modernization, and

rehabilitation of existing and future

transit facilities) and make the most

efficient use of existing transportation

facilities to relieve vehicular congestion

and enhance the mobility of people and

goods;

(6) Include design concept and scope

descriptions of all existing and

proposed transportation facilities in

sufficient detail, regardless of the source

of funding, in nonattainment and

maintenance areas to permit conformity

determinations under the U.S. EPA

conformity regulations at 40 CFR parts

51 and 93. In all areas, all proposed

improvements shall be described in

sufficient detail to develop cost

estimates;

(7) Reflect a multimodal evaluation of

the transportation, socioeconomic,

environmental, and financial impact of

the overall plan;

(8) Reflect, to the extent that they

exist, consideration of: Comprehensive

long-range land use plan(s) and

development objectives; State and local

housing goals and strategies, community

development and employment plans

and strategies, and environmental

resource plans; linking low income

households with employment

opportunities as reflected in work force

training and labor mobility plans and

strategies; energy conservation goals;

and the metropolitan area’s overall

social, economic, and environmental

goals and objectives;

(9) Indicate, as appropriate, proposed

transportation enhancement activities as

defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a); and

(10) Include a financial plan that

demonstrates the consistency of

proposed transportation investments

(including illustrative projects where

identified in the financial plan) with

already available and projected sources

of revenue. The financial plan shall

compare the estimated revenue from

existing and proposed funding sources

that can reasonably be expected to be

available for transportation uses, and

the estimated costs of constructing,

maintaining and operating the total

(existing plus planned) transportation

system over the period of the plan.

Financial estimates utilized in preparing

transportation plans (and TIPs) shall be

developed through procedures

cooperatively established and mutually

agreed to by the MPO, the State DOT

and the transit operator(s). The

estimated revenue by existing revenue

source (local, State, Federal and private)

available for transportation projects

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33955

shall be determined and any shortfalls

identified. Proposed new revenues and/

or revenue sources to cover shortfalls

shall be identified, including strategies

for ensuring their availability for

proposed investments. Existing and

proposed revenues shall cover all

forecasted capital, operating,

management, and maintenance costs.

All cost and revenue projections shall

be based on the data reflecting the

existing situation and historical trends.

For nonattainment and maintenance

areas, the financial plan shall address

the specific financial strategies required

to ensure the implementation of projects

and programs to reach air quality

compliance.

(11) Include an ITS integration

strategy for the purposes of guiding and

coordinating the management and

funding of ITS investments supported

with highway trust fund dollars to

achieve an integrated regional system.

The scope of the integration strategy

shall be appropriate to the scale of

investment anticipated for ITS during

the life of the plan and shall address the

resource commitments and staging of

planned investments. Provision shall be

made to include participation from the

following agencies, at a minimum, in

the development of the integration

strategy: Highway and public safety

agencies; appropriate Federal lands

agencies; State motor carrier agencies as

appropriate; and other operating

agencies necessary to fully address

regional ITS integration. In determining

how ITS investments will meet

metropolitan goals and objectives, the

integration strategy shall clearly assess

existing and future ITS systems,

including their functions and electronic

information sharing expectations.

Unique regional ITS initiatives (a

program of related projects) that are

multi-jurisdictional and/or multi-modal,

ITS projects that affect regional

integration of ITS systems, and projects

which directly support national

interoperability shall be identified.

Documentation within the plan shall

reflect the scale of investment and the

needs and size of the metropolitan area.

(c) There must be adequate

opportunity for public official

(including elected officials) and citizen

involvement in the development of the

transportation plan before it is approved

by the MPO, in accordance with the

requirements of § 1410.316(b). Such

procedures shall include opportunities

for interested parties (including citizens,

affected public agencies, representatives

of transportation agency employees,

freight shippers, representatives of users

of public transit, providers of freight

transportation services, and private

providers of transportation) to be

involved in the early stages of the plan

development/update process. The

procedures shall include publication of

the proposed plan or other methods to

make it readily available for public

review and comment and, in

nonattainment TMAs, an opportunity

for at least one formal public meeting

annually to review planning

assumptions and the plan development

process with interested parties and the

general public. The procedures also

shall include publication of the

approved plan or other methods to make

it readily available for information

purposes.

(d) In nonattainment and maintenance

areas for transportation related

pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA, as

well as the MPO, must make a

conformity determination on any new/

revised plan in accordance with the

Clean Air Act and the EPA conformity

regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). If

a conformity determination cannot be

accomplished by either the MPO and or

the FHWA and the FTA, the results will

be communicated to the Governor or the

Governor’s designee and the public

transit operator with an explanation of

the potential consequences.

(e) The FHWA and the FTA do not

approve transportation plans. However,

Federal actions and approvals,

including, but not limited to, conformity

determinations, planning findings

(pursuant to § 1410.322(b)), STIP

approvals, completion of the NEPA

process, grant agreements, and project

authorizations, are based on a

transportation plan with a horizon of at

least twenty years on the effective date

of the plan. Plans that remain

substantially unchanged (i.e., regionally

significant projects in attainment areas

and non-exempt projects in

nonattainment and maintenance areas

have not been added) after adoption

may serve as the basis for subsequent

Federal actions until such time as the

next update. In attainment areas the

effective date of the plan shall be its

date of adoption by the MPO. In

nonattainment and maintenance areas,

the effective date shall be the date of a

conformity determination by the FHWA

and the FTA.

(f) Although transportation plans do

not need to be approved by the FHWA

or the FTA, copies of any new/revised

plans must be provided to each agency.

(g) During a conformity lapse

metropolitan areas can prepare an

interim plan as a basis for advancing

projects that are eligible to proceed

under a conformity lapse (as defined in

40 CFR parts 51 and 93). In areas which

expect to return to conformity earlier

than six months, the emphasis should

be on reestablishing conformity, rather

than embarking on developing an

interim plan and TIP.

§ 1410.324 Transportation improvement

program content.

(a) The metropolitan transportation

planning process shall include

development of a transportation

improvement program (TIP) for the

metropolitan planning area by the MPO

in cooperation with the State and public

transit operators.

(b) The TIP must be updated at least

every two years and approved by the

MPO and the Governor. The frequency

and cycle for updating the TIP must be

compatible with the STIP development

and approval process. Since the TIP

becomes part of the STIP, the TIP lapses

when the FHWA and the FTA approval

for the STIP lapses. In the case of

extenuating circumstances, the FHWA

and the FTA will consider and take

appropriate action on requests to extend

the STIP approval period for all or part

of the STIP in accordance with

§ 1410.222(c). TIP extensions shall not

be granted in nonattainment or

maintenance areas. Although

metropolitan TIPs are not approved

individually by the FHWA or the FTA,

they are approved as part of the STIP

approval action by the FTA and the

FHWA. Copies of any new or amended

TIPs must be provided to each agency.

Additionally, in nonattainment and

maintenance areas for transportation

related pollutants, the FHWA and the

FTA, as well as the MPO, must make a

conformity determination on any new or

amended TIPs (unless the new amended

TIP consists entirely of exempt projects)

in accordance with the Clean Air Act

requirements and the EPA conformity

regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).

(c) There must be reasonable

opportunity for public comment in

accordance with the requirements of

§ 1410.316(b) and, in nonattainment

TMAs, an opportunity for at least one

formal public meeting during the TIP

development process. This public

meeting may be combined with the

public meeting required under

§ 1410.322(c). The proposed TIP shall be

published or otherwise made readily

available for review and comment.

Similarly, the approved TIP shall be

published or otherwise made readily

available for information purposes.

(d) The TIP shall cover a period of not

less than three years, but may cover a

longer period if it identifies priorities

and financial information for the

additional years. The TIP must include

a priority list of projects to be advanced

in the first three years. As a minimum,

33956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the priority list shall group the projects

that are to be undertaken in each of the

years, i.e., year one, year two, year three.

In nonattainment and maintenance

areas, the TIP shall give priority to

eligible TCMs identified in the

approved SIP in accordance with the

U.S. EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR

parts 51 and 93) and shall provide for

their timely implementation.

(e) The TIP shall be financially

constrained by year and include a

financial plan that demonstrates which

projects can be implemented using

current revenue sources and which

projects are to be implemented using

proposed revenue sources (while the

existing transportation system is being

adequately operated and maintained).

The financial plan shall be developed

by the MPO in cooperation with the

State and the transit operator. Financial

estimates utilized in preparing TIPs

shall be developed through procedures

cooperatively established and mutually

agreed to by the MPO, the State DOT

and the transit operator(s). It is expected

that the State would develop this

information as part of the STIP

development process and that the

estimates would be refined through this

process. Only projects for which

construction and operating funds can

reasonably be expected to be available

(and illustrative projects) may be

included. In the case of new funding

sources, strategies for ensuring their

availability shall be identified. In

developing the financial analysis, the

MPO shall take into account all projects

and strategies funded under title 23,

U.S.C., 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, other

Federal funds, local sources, State

assistance, and private participation. In

nonattainment and maintenance areas,

projects included for the first two years

of the current TIP shall be limited to

those for which funds are available or

committed.

(f) The TIP shall include:

(1) All transportation projects, or

identified phases of a project, (including

pedestrian walkways, safety, bicycle

transportation facilities and

transportation enhancement projects)

within the metropolitan planning area

proposed for funding under title 23,

U.S.C., and Federal Lands Highway

projects. Title 49, U.S.C., Emergency

relief projects (except those involving

substantial functional, locational or

capacity changes) and planning and

research activities (except those funded

with NHS, STP, and/or Minimum

Guarantee funds) are exempt from this

requirement. Planning and research

activities funded with NHS, STP and/or

Minimum Guarantee funds may be

excluded from the TIP by agreement of

the State and the MPO;

(2) Only projects that are consistent

with the transportation plan;

(3) All regionally significant

transportation projects for which an

FHWA or FTA action is required

whether or not the projects are to be

funded with title 23, U.S.C., or title 49,

U.S.C., funds, e.g., addition of an

interchange to the Interstate System

with State, local, and/or private funds,

demonstration projects not funded

under titles 23 and 49, U.S.C., etc.;

(4) Any FTA or FHWA funded or

approved projects submitted to EPA for

consideration as a SIP TCM;

(5) For air quality analysis in

nonattainment and maintenance areas

and informational purposes in other

areas, all regionally significant

transportation projects proposed to be

funded with Federal funds, including

intermodal facilities, not covered in

paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(3) of this section;

and

(6) For air quality analysis in

nonattainment and maintenance areas

and informational purposes in other

areas, all regionally significant projects

to be funded with non-Federal funds.

(g) With respect to each project or

project phase under paragraph (f) of this

section the TIP shall include:

(1) Sufficient descriptive material

(i.e., type of work, termini, length, etc.)

to identify the project or phase;

(2) Estimated total project cost (which

may extend beyond the three years of

the TIP);

(3) The amount of Federal funds

proposed to be obligated during each

program year for the project or phase of

the project;

(4) Proposed category and source of

Federal and non-Federal funds;

(5) Identification of the recipient/

subrecipient and State and local

agencies responsible for carrying out the

project or phase of the project;

(6) In nonattainment and maintenance

areas, identification of those projects or

phases of projects which are identified

as TCMs in the applicable SIP or are

new TCMs with emissions benefits

being submitted for SIP approval during

a conformity lapse; and

(7) In areas with Americans with

Disabilities Act required paratransit and

key station plans, identification of those

projects or phases of projects which will

implement the plans.

(h) In nonattainment and maintenance

areas, projects included shall be

specified in sufficient detail (design

concept and scope) to permit air quality

analysis in accordance with the U.S.

EPA conformity requirements (40 CFR

parts 51 and 93).

(i) Projects proposed for FHWA and/

or FTA funding that are not considered

by the State and the MPO to be of

appropriate scale for individual

identification in a given program year

may be grouped by function, geographic

area, and work type using applicable

classifications under 23 CFR 1420.117

(c) and (d). In nonattainment and

maintenance areas, classifications must

be consistent with the exempt project

classifications contained in the U.S.

EPA conformity requirements (40 CFR

parts 51 and 93). In addition, projects

funded under Chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C.

may be grouped by funding category

and shown as one line unless they are

determined to be regionally significant.

(j) Projects utilizing Federal funds that

have been allocated to the area pursuant

to 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(E) shall be

identified.

(k) The total Federal share of projects

included in the TIP proposed for

funding under 49 U.S.C. 5307 may not

exceed formula backed apportioned

funding levels available to the area for

the program year.

(l) Procedures or agreements that

distribute suballocated Surface

Transportation Program or urbanized

area formula (49 U.S.C. 5307) funds to

individual jurisdictions or modes

within the metropolitan area by

predetermined percentages or formulas

are inconsistent with the legislative

provisions that require MPOs in

cooperation with the State and transit

operators to develop a prioritized and

financially constrained TIP and shall

not be used unless they can be clearly

shown to be based on considerations

required to be addressed as part of the

planning process.

(m) For the purpose of including

transit projects funded through Capital

Investment Grants or Loans (49 U.S.C.

5309) in a TIP, the following approach

shall be followed:

(1) The total Federal share of projects

included in the first year of the TIP shall

not exceed levels of funding committed

to the area; and

(2) The total Federal share of projects

included in the second, third and/or

subsequent years of the TIP may not

exceed levels of funding committed,

apportioned, appropriated (including

carryover and unobligated balances

reasonably expected to be available, to

the area.

(n) As a management tool for

monitoring progress in implementing

the transportation plan, the TIP shall:

(1) Identify the criteria and process for

prioritizing implementation of

transportation plan elements (including

intermodal trade-offs) for inclusion in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33957

the TIP and any changes in priorities

from previous TIPs;

(2) List major projects from the

previous TIP that were implemented

and identify any significant delays in

the planned implementation of major

projects;

(3) In nonattainment and maintenance

areas, describe the progress in

implementing any required TCMs,

including the reasons for any significant

delays in the planned implementation

and strategies for ensuring their

advancement at the earliest possible

time; and

(4) In nonattainment and maintenance

areas, include a list of all projects found

to conform in a previous TIP. Projects

shall be included in this list until

construction has been fully authorized.

(5) Serve as a basis for an annual

listing of projects for which Federal

funds have been obligated,

supplemented as appropriate to ensure

annual public access to information on

the obligation of funds.

(o) In order to maintain or establish

operations, in the absence of an

approved metropolitan TIP, the FTA

and/or the FHWA Administrators, as

appropriate, may approve operating

assistance.

(p) During a conformity lapses

metropolitan areas may prepare an

interim TIP as a basis for advancing

projects that are eligible to proceed

under a lapse (as defined in 40 CFR

parts 51 and 93). In areas which expect

to return to conformity earlier than six

months, the emphasis should be on

reestablishing conformity, rather than

embarking on developing an interim

plan and TIP.

§ 1410.326 Transportation improvement

program modification.

The TIP may be modified at any time

under procedures agreed to by the

cooperating parties consistent with the

procedures established in this part for

its development and approval. In

nonattainment or maintenance areas for

transportation related pollutants, if the

TIP is modified by adding or deleting

non-exempt projects or is replaced with

a new TIP, a new conformity

determinations by the MPO and the

FHWA and the FTA shall be made.

Public involvement procedures

consistent with § 1410.316(b) shall be

utilized in modifying the TIP, except

that these procedures are not required

for TIP modifications that only involve

projects of the type covered in

§ 1410.324(i).

§ 1410.328 Metropolitan transportation

improvement program relationship in

statewide TIP.

(a) After approval by the MPO and the

Governor, the TIP shall be included

without modification, directly or by

reference, in the STIP program required

under 23 U.S.C. 135 and consistent with

§ 1410.220, except that in

nonattainment and maintenance areas, a

conformity finding by the FHWA and

the FTA must be made before it is

included in the STIP. After approval by

the MPO and the Governor, a copy shall

be provided to the FHWA and the FTA.

(b) The State shall notify the

appropriate MPO and Federal Lands

Highways Program agencies, e.g.,

Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or National

Park Service, when a TIP including

projects under the jurisdiction of these

agencies has been included in the STIP.

§ 1410.330 Transportation improvement

program action by FHWA/FTA.

(a) The FHWA and the FTA must

jointly find that each metropolitan TIP

is consistent with the metropolitan

transportation plan produced by the

continuing, comprehensive

transportation process carried on

cooperatively by the States, the MPOs

and the transit operators in accordance

with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134 and

49 U.S.C. 5307 and 5313(b). This

finding shall be based on the selfcertification statement submitted by the

State and MPO under § 1410.334, a

review of the metropolitan

transportation plan and upon other

reviews as deemed necessary by the

FHWA and the FTA.

(b) In nonattainment and maintenance

areas, the FHWA and the FTA must also

jointly determine, in accordance with 40

CFR parts 51 and 93, that the

metropolitan TIP conforms with the

applicable SIP and that priority has

been given to the timely implementation

of transportation control measures

contained in the applicable SIP. As part

of their review in nonattainment and

maintenance areas requiring TCMs, the

FHWA and the FTA will specifically

consider any comments relating to the

financial plans for the plan and TIP

contained in the summary of significant

comments required under § 1410.316(b).

If the TIP is determined to be in

nonconformance with the SIP, the

FHWA and FTA shall return the TIP to

the Governor and the MPO with an

explanation of the joint determination

and an explanation of potential

consequences. If the TIP is found to

conform with the SIP, the Governor and

MPO shall be notified of the joint

finding. After the FHWA and the FTA

find the TIP to be in conformance, the

TIP shall be incorporated, without

modification, into the STIP, directly or

by reference.

(c) If an illustrative project is included

in the TIP, no Federal action may be

taken on that project by the FHWA and

the FTA until it is formally included in

the fiscally constrained and conforming

plan and TIP. The MPOs are not

required to include illustrative projects

in future TIPs.

§ 1410.332 Selecting projects from a TIP.

(a) Once a TIP that meets the

requirements of § 1410.324 has been

developed and approved, the first year

of the TIP shall constitute an ‘‘agreed

to’’ list of projects for project selection

purposes and no further project

selection action is required for the

implementing agency to proceed with

projects, except where the appropriated

Federal funds available to the

metropolitan planning area are

significantly less than the authorized

amounts. In this case, a revised ‘‘agreed

to’’ list of projects shall be jointly

developed by the MPO, the State, and

the transit operator if requested by the

MPO, the State, or the transit operator.

If the State or transit operator wishes to

proceed with a project in the second or

third year of the TIP, the specific project

selection procedures stated in

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section

must be used unless the MPO, the State,

and the transit operator jointly develop

expedited project selection procedures

to provide for the advancement of

projects from the second or third year of

the TIP.

(b) In areas not designated as TMAs

and when § 1410.332(c) does not apply,

projects to be implemented using title

23 funds other than Federal lands

projects or title 49 funds shall be

selected by the State and/or the transit

operator, in cooperation with the MPO

from the approved metropolitan TIP

Federal Lands Highway Program

projects shall be selected in accordance

with 23 U.S.C. 204.

(c) In areas designated as TMAs where

§ 1410.332(c) does not apply, all title 23

and title 49 funded projects, except

projects on the NHS and projects funded

under the bridge, and Federal Lands

Highways programs, shall be selected by

the MPO in consultation with the State

and transit operator from the approved

metropolitan TIP and in accordance

with the priorities in the approved

metropolitan TIP. Projects on the NHS

and projects funded under the bridge

program shall be selected by the State in

cooperation with the MPO, from the

approved metropolitan TIP. Federal

Lands Highway Program projects shall

33958 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

be selected in accordance with 23 U.S.C.

204.

(d) Projects not included in the

federally approved STIP shall not be

eligible for funding with title 23 or title

49, U.S.C., funds.

(e) In nonattainment and maintenance

areas, priority shall be given to the

timely implementation of TCMs

contained in the applicable SIP in

accordance with the U.S. EPA

conformity regulations at 40 CFR parts

51 and 93.

§ 1410.334 Federal certifications.

(a) The State and the MPO shall

annually self-certify to the FHWA and

the FTA that the planning process is

addressing the major issues facing the

area and is being conducted in

accordance with all applicable

requirements of:

(1) 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303–

5306;

(2) Sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d)

of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504,

7506 (c) and (d));

(3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and the Title VI assurance

executed by each State under 23 U.S.C.

324 and 29 U.S.C. 794;

(4) Section 1003(b) of the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of

1991 (Public Law 102–240, 105 stat.

1914) regarding the involvement of

disadvantaged business enterprises in

the FHWA and the FTA funded

planning projects (sec. 105(f), Public

Law 97–424, 96 Stat. 2100; 49 CFR part

23);

(5) Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and U.S.

DOT regulations ‘‘Transportation for

Individuals with Disabilities’’ (49 CFR

parts 27, 37, and 38);

(6) Older Americans Act, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 6101); and

(7) The provisions of 49 CFR part 20

regarding restrictions on influencing

certain Federal activities.

(8) All other applicable provisions of

Federal law.

(b) The FHWA and the FTA jointly

will review and evaluate the

transportation planning process for each

TMA (as appropriate but no less than

once every three years) to determine if

the process meets the requirements of

this subpart.

(c) In TMAs that are nonattainment or

maintenance areas for transportation

related pollutants, the FHWA and the

FTA will also review and evaluate the

transportation planning process to

assure that the MPO has an adequate

process to ensure conformity of plans

and programs in accordance with

procedures in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.

(d) Upon the review and evaluation

conducted under paragraphs (b) and (c)

of this section, the FHWA and the FTA

shall take one of the following actions,

as indicated:

(1) Where the process meets the

requirements of this part, jointly certify

the transportation planning process;

(2) Where the process substantially

meets the requirements of this part,

jointly certify the transportation

planning process subject to certain

specified corrective actions being taken;

or

(3) Where the process does not meet

the requirements of this part, jointly

certify the planning process as the basis

for approval of only those categories of

programs or projects that the

Administrators may jointly determine

and subject to certain specified

corrective actions being taken.

(e) A certification action under this

section will remain in effect for three

years unless a new certification

determination is made sooner or a

shorter term is specified in the

certification report.

(f) If, upon the review and evaluation

conducted under paragraph (b) or (c) of

this section, the FHWA and the FTA

jointly determine that the transportation

planning process in a TMA does not

substantially meet the requirements,

they may take the following action as

appropriate:

(1) Withhold up to twenty percent of

the apportionment attributed to the

relevant metropolitan planning area

under 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3), capital funds

apportioned under 49 U.S.C. 5307–

5309; or

(2) Withhold approval of all or certain

categories of projects.

(g) In conducting a certification

review, the FHWA and the FTA shall

make provision, relying on the local

public involvement processes and

supplemented with other involvement

strategies as appropriate, to engage the

public in the review process. The

FHWA and the FTA shall consider the

public input received in arriving at a

decision on a certification action.

(h) The State and the MPO shall be

notified of the actions taken under

paragraph (f) of this section. Upon full,

joint certification by the FHWA and the

FTA, all funds withheld will be restored

to the metropolitan area, unless the

funds have lapsed.

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Chapter VI

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Federal Transit

Administration proposes to amend

Chapter VI of title 49, Code of Federal

Regulations, as follows:

PART 613—[REMOVED]

3. Remove part 613.

4. Add part 621 to read as follows:

PART 621—METROPOLITAN AND

STATEWIDE PLANNING

Subpart A—Planning

Sec.

621.100 Definitions.

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation

Planning and programming

621.200 Statewide transportation planning

and programming.

Subpart C—Metropolitan Transportation

Planning and Programming

621.300 Metropolitan transportation

planning and programming.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; 42

U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 5303–5309; 49

CFR .151.

Subpart A—Planning

§ 621.100 Definitions.

The regulations in 23 CFR 1410,

subpart A, shall be followed in

complying with the requirements of this

subpart.

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation

Planning and programming

§ 621.200 Statewide transportation

planning and programming.

The regulations in 23 CFR 1410

subpart B, shall be followed in

complying with the requirements of this

subpart.

Subpart C—Metropolitan

Transportation Planning and

Programming

§ 621.300 Metropolitan transportation

planning and programming

The regulations in 23 CFR part 1410,

subpart C, shall be followed in

complying with the requirements of this

subpart.

Issued on: May 18, 2000.

Vincent F. Schimmoller,

Acting Executive Director, Federal Highway

Administration.

Nuria I. Fernandez,

Acting Administrator, Federal Transit

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–13021 Filed 5–19–00; 1:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–MR–P