7224 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 613 

[Docket No. FHWA–2005–22986] 

RIN 2125–AF09; FTA RIN 2132–AA82 

Statewide Transportation Planning; 

Metropolitan Transportation Planning 

AGENCIES: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA); Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the 

regulations governing the development 

of metropolitan transportation plans and 

programs for urbanized areas, State 

transportation plans and programs and 

the regulations for Congestion 

Management Systems. The revision 

results from the passage of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59, 

August 10, 2005), which also 

incorporates changes initiated in its 

predecessor legislation, the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA–21) (Pub. L. 105–178, 

June 9, 1998) and generally will make 

the regulations consistent with current 

statutory requirements. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

the FHWA: Mr. Larry D. Anderson, 

Planning Oversight and Stewardship 

Team (HEPP–10), (202) 366–2374, Mr. 

Robert Ritter, Planning Capacity 

Building Team (HEPP–20), (202) 493– 

2139, or Ms. Diane Liff, Office of the 

Chief Counsel (HCC–10), (202) 366– 

6203. For the FTA: Mr. Charles 

Goodman, Office of Planning and 

Environment, (202) 366–1944, Mr. Darin 

Allan, Office of Planning and 

Environment, (202) 366–6694, or Mr. 

Christopher VanWyk, Office of Chief 

Counsel, (202) 366–1733. Both agencies 

are located at 400 Seventh Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are 

from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m for FHWA, 

and 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. for FTA, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

Interested parties may access all 

comments on the NPRM received by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) online through the Docket 

Management System (DMS) at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. The DMS Web site is 

available 24 hours each day, 365 days 

each year. Follow the instructions 

online. Additional assistance is 

available at the help section of the Web 

site. 

An electronic copy of this final rule 

may be downloaded using the Office of 

the Federal Register’s Web page at: 

http://www.archives.gov and the 

Government Printing Office’s Web page 

at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ 

index.html. 

Background 

The regulations found at 23 CFR 450 

and 500 and 49 CFR 613 outline the 

requirements for State Departments of 

Transportation (DOTs), Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) and 

public transportation operators to 

conduct a continuing, comprehensive 

and coordinated transportation planning 

and programming process in 

metropolitan areas and States. These 

regulations have not been 

comprehensively updated or revised 

since October 28, 1993. Since that time, 

Congress has enacted several laws that 

affect the requirements outlined in these 

regulations (e.g. such as the TEA–21 and 

the SAFETEA–LU). Therefore, the 

agencies needed to update these 

regulations to be consistent with current 

statutory requirements. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 

On June 9, 2006, the agencies 

published, in the Federal Register, a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

proposing to revise the regulations 

governing the development of statewide 

and metropolitan transportation plans 

and programs and the regulations for 

Congestion Management Systems (71 FR 

33510). The comment period remained 

open until September 7, 2006. During 

the comment period on the proposed 

rule, the FTA and the FHWA held six 

public outreach workshops and a 

national telecast, also available on the 

World Wide Web. Those meetings 

provided an opportunity for FTA and 

FHWA to provide an overview of the 

NPRM and offer clarification of selected 

provisions. Comments were not 

solicited at those meetings, and 

attendees were encouraged to submit all 

comments to the official docket. A 

summary of the issues raised at the 

meetings and the general response of the 

FTA and the FHWA presenters, along 

with copies of the materials presented at 

the meeting, is included in the docket 

(item Number 27). 

In addition, the FHWA and the FTA 

responded to requests for presentations 

at several regularly scheduled meetings 

or conferences of national and regional 

professional, industry or advocacy 

organizations during the comment 

period of the NPRM. 

Discussion of Comments 

In response to the NPRM, we received 

over 150 documents (representing more 

than 1,600 comments) submitted to the 

docket as reflected in the summary 

below (and spreadsheet on file in the 

docket). The following discussion 

summarizes our response. We received 

diverse and even opposing comments. 

General comments concerning the rule 

are addressed initially, followed by 

specific responses to individual sections 

of the regulatory proposals. 

We categorized the comments 

received by the type of organization that 

submitted the comments. The following 

categories are used throughout this 

discussion: State DOTs; MPOs, councils 

of government (COGs) and regional 

planning agencies; national and regional 

professional, industry or advocacy 

organization (which includes 

organizations representing State DOTs, 

MPOs, COGs or other agencies whose 

individual comments may be included 

in a different category), local/regional 

transit agency; general public; city/ 

county (other sub-State government); 

State (other agency, Governor, 

Legislator); Federal agency and other. 

State DOTs submitted almost onequarter of the documents, which 

account for almost one-third of all 

comments. MPOs, COGs and regional 

planning agencies submitted slightly 

more than one-third of the documents, 

also accounting for approximately onethird of the comments. National and 

regional professional, industry or 

advocacy organizations submitted over 

one-quarter of the documents and 

approximately one-quarter of the 

comments. Local/regional transit 

agencies submitted approximately 5 

percent of the documents. Other 

organizations or individuals submitted 

the remainder. Most State DOTs and 

some other commenters wrote in 

support of the comments submitted by 

the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO). Many MPOs and COGs and 

some other commenters wrote in 

support of the comments submitted by 

the Association of Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (AMPO) and/or 

the National Association of Regional 

Councils (NARC). Several public 

transportation operators and others 

wrote in support of the comments 

submitted by the American Public 

Transportation Association (APTA). 

The FHWA and the FTA received 

comments on almost all sections of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7225 

1Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, 

October 1998 Revision. National Archives and 

Records Administration, Office of the Federal 

Register. It is available at the following URL: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/handbook/ 

ddh.pdf. 

rule. The largest number of individual 

comments we received were on fiscal 

constraint issues. Other sections with 

more than five percent of the overall 

comments included: § 450.104 

(Definitions), § 450.216 (Development 

and content of the statewide 

transportation improvement program 

(STIP)), § 450.322 (Development and 

content of the metropolitan 

transportation plan), and § 450.324 

(Development and content of the 

transportation improvement program). 

Several national and regional 

advocacy organizations, a few State 

DOTs and MPOs, some transit agencies 

and others suggested changes that go 

beyond what is required by statute. The 

FHWA and the FTA have adhered 

closely to the statutory language in 

drafting the regulation. Over time, and 

as necessary, the FHWA and the FTA 

will continue to issue additional 

guidance and disseminate information 

on noteworthy practices that may 

address these suggestions. 

In response to several comments, 

specific regulatory reference to a 

Regional Transit Security Strategy 

(RTSS), including its definition, was 

removed due to the concern for possible 

disclosure of security-sensitive 

information in the planning process. 

Further, an RTSS is not required 

universally of all metropolitan areas and 

States. Regulatory language in both the 

metropolitan and statewide 

transportation planning sections was 

revised to make broad reference to the 

need for coordination with 

‘‘appropriate’’ transit security-related 

plans, programs, and decision-making 

processes. 

One national and regional 

professional, industry or advocacy 

organization suggested the 

incorporation of the Real Time System 

Management Information Program 

(required by § 1201 of the SAFETEA–

LU) into the statewide transportation 

planning process. While the FHWA and 

the FTA agree that current, good quality 

data can improve effective 

transportation decisions and is key to 

effective operation and management 

strategies, we recognize each State’s 

need to determine their appropriate 

statewide coordinated data collection 

program to support their individual 

planning process. We encourage the 

States to consider including real-time 

data, provided by the Real Time System 

Management Information Program, but 

have not included a requirement in this 

rule. 

The FHWA and the FTA were asked 

to evaluate whether the leadership posts 

on MPO boards were acting in an 

impartial manner. A few organizations 

expressed concern that nonmetropolitan or non-elected officials 

who serve as board chairs may have 

conflicts of interest that undermine 

local control of transportation funding. 

The FHWA and the FTA will consider 

conducting such a study as part of their 

discretionary research programs. 

Currently, we do not have enough 

information on this subject for 

incorporation into this rule. 

Several documents providing 

research, data, and analysis on various 

issues related to transportation, 

planning and environment were 

submitted to the docket. The FHWA and 

the FTA have reviewed these 

documents and considered the 

information in developing this rule. 

The FHWA and the FTA were asked 

to recognize regional planning 

organizations/regional transportation 

planning organizations (RPOs/RTPOs) 

throughout the rule as stakeholders and 

interested parties in the transportation 

planning process in States where they 

are established by law. Although the 

rule is silent on RPOs/RTPOs, 

§ 450.208(a)(6) highlights that statewide 

transportation planning needs to 

coordinate with related planning 

activities being conducted outside of 

metropolitan planning areas. The 

FHWA and the FTA recognize that the 

RPO/RTPO planning process and 

activities should be input into the 

statewide transportation planning 

process. Further, many of the RPOs/ 

RTPOs are recognized as forms of local 

government, and are addressed in 

§ 420.210 (Interested parties, public 

involvement and consultation). 

A few commenters observed that 

many small MPOs have very little 

funding from USDOT or non-USDOT 

sources, have very limited staffs, and 

limited consultant or technical support 

resources of their own. The FHWA and 

the FTA were urged to find ways to 

scale the regulatory requirements to fit 

the size and scope of smaller MPOs. We 

noted this comment and have tried to 

provide as much flexibility in the rule 

as practicable. We have provided some 

streamlined requirements for the nontransportation management area (TMA) 

MPOs, such as Simplified Statement of 

Work and grouping of projects within 

the transportation improvement 

program (TIP). The MPO is responsible 

for developing a planning process that 

is appropriate for its communities, given 

the resources and technical capability of 

the MPO. 

Several State DOTs and a national and 

regional advocacy organization objected 

to including guidance documents with 

the regulations as Appendices A and B. 

These commenters noted that by 

including these documents with the 

regulation as appendices, the guidance 

documents would have the force and 

effect of law and, as a result, would 

‘‘open up FHWA and FTA (and thus the 

States and MPOs) to litigation 

challenges based on a selective reading 

of short passages in these lengthy 

documents.’’ Therefore, these 

commenters requested removal of the 

appendices. Additionally, these 

commenters were concerned that 

including these guidance documents 

with the regulation would make it more 

difficult to change these documents in 

response to evolving practices, as any 

change would require a rulemaking 

action. 

The Office of the Federal Register, 

pursuant to the Federal Register Act (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 15) has established 

criteria for publishing material in the 

Federal Register and the Code of 

Federal Regulations. Under these 

criteria, agencies may use an appendix 

to improve upon the quality or use of a 

regulation, but not to impose 

requirements or restrictions. 

Additionally, agencies may not use an 

appendix as a substitute for regulatory 

text.1 The information the FHWA and 

the FTA proposed to include in 

appendices A and B is intended to be 

non-binding guidance. Therefore, we 

believe that State DOTs and MPOs 

would not be subject to increased 

litigation based on inclusion of these 

appendices. 

We believe that Appendix A, Linking 

the Transportation Planning and NEPA 

Processes, provides explanatory 

information that amplifies the rule and 

does not add any additional 

requirements and would not be subject 

to many changes. Therefore, we have 

decided to keep Appendix A, but are 

adding a disclaimer to this effect in the 

introduction of Appendix A 

highlighting its non-binding status. In 

addition, we have made some minor 

changes to the text of Appendix A to 

ensure that it is consistent with the 

environmental streamlining 

requirements of § 6002 of the 

SAFETEA–LU. 

As for Appendix B, Fiscal Constraint 

of Transportation Plans and Programs, 

the FHWA and the FTA agree with these 

commenters that modifications to this 

document may be more frequently 

required to respond to evolving 

practices. Therefore, the FHWA and the 

FTA have decided to remove Appendix 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7226 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2This document, ‘‘Plain English Guide to the 

Clean Air Act’’ is available via the Internet at the 

following URL: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/ 

peg_caa/pegcaain.html. 

3EPA’s conformity web page can be found at the 

following URL: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/index.htm. 

4This document is available via the Internet at 

the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

environment/conformity/rule.htm. 

B from the rule. However, there are 

three elements within that appendix 

that the agencies believe should be a 

part of the regulatory text for clarity and 

completeness. These elements are: (1) 

Treatment of highway and transit 

operations and maintenance costs and 

revenues; (2) use of ‘‘year of expenditure 

dollars’’ in developing cost and revenue 

estimates; and (3) use of ‘‘cost ranges/ 

cost bands’’ in the outer years of the 

metropolitan transportation plan. Please 

see the responses to the comments on 

Appendix B for additional background 

information and explanation. 

Consequently, we have included 

language in § 450.216 (Development and 

content of the statewide transportation 

improvement program (STIP)), § 450.322 

(Development and content of the 

metropolitan transportation plan), and 

§ 450.324 (Development and content of 

the transportation improvement 

program (TIP)) to address these issues 

within the regulation. The material 

contained in the proposed Appendix B 

will be made available as a guidance 

document on the agencies’ Web sites. 

Section-by-Section Discussion 

The discussion in this section 

compares the NPRM with the final rule 

and discusses comments submitted on 

each section along with an explanation 

of any changes we made from the NPRM 

to the final rule. All references to 

revisions or changes are to changes in 

language that we originally proposed in 

the NPRM. 

23 CFR Part 450 

Subpart A—Transportation Planning 

and Programming Definitions 

Section 450.100 Purpose 

No comments were received on this 

section and no changes were made. 

Section 450.102 Applicability 

No comments were received on this 

section and no changes were made. 

Section 450.104 Definitions 

There were more than 45 documents 

with over 225 comments submitted on 

this section, with half of the documents 

coming from MPOs and almost onefourth each from State DOTs and 

national and regional advocacy groups. 

Transit agencies, city/county agencies 

and the general public also commented 

on this section. Some of those that 

commented on this section 

recommended specific changes to 

examples or lists included in various 

definitions. It is important to note that 

the recommended lists in these 

definitions are intended to be advisory 

and not exhaustive; therefore, we did 

not make changes to the lists of 

examples. 

Several definitions were revised based 

on comments received. These changes 

are described below. 

Many State DOTs and MPOs as well 

as several national and regional 

advocacy organizations were concerned 

about the definitions of ‘‘administrative 

modification’’ and ‘‘amendment.’’

Commenters requested greater 

distinction between the two terms. 

Several of those that commented on 

this section requested that the words 

‘‘minor revision’’ be included in the 

definition of ‘‘administrative 

modification.’’ This change has been 

made. The examples in this definition 

have also been clarified, including 

‘‘minor changes to project/project phase 

initiation dates.’’ It is important to note 

that while an ‘‘administrative 

modification’’ can change the initiation 

date, it cannot affect the completion 

date of the project as modeled in the 

regional emissions analysis in 

nonattainment or maintenance areas. A 

change in the project/project phase 

completion date in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area would be considered 

an ‘‘amendment.’’ Finally, based on 

comments, the term ‘‘not significant’’

was removed. 

Commenters suggested that the term 

‘‘amendment’’ include the words ‘‘major 

change’’ and use ‘‘major’’ in the 

examples. These changes have been 

made. State DOTs and MPOs should 

work with the FHWA and the FTA to 

identify thresholds for a ‘‘major’’ change 

in project cost. Examples of thresholds 

could include, but are not limited to, 

project cost increase that exceeds 20 

percent of the total project cost; or 

project cost increase that exceeds a 

certain dollar amount, for example, the 

increase in costs exceeds the 

programmed amount by $50,000 or 

$100,000. 

Further, some State DOTs and 

advocacy organizations wrote that 

changes in illustrative projects should 

not require an amendment. We agree. A 

sentence has been added to the 

definition of ‘‘amendment’’ to clarify 

this point. Also, most State DOTs that 

commented on this section noted that 

‘‘amendment’’ should apply differently 

to long-range statewide transportation 

plans, since they are not subject to fiscal 

constraint. A sentence was added to the 

definition to clarify the long-range 

statewide transportation plan context. 

After consultation with EPA, the 

definition of ‘‘attainment area’’ was 

revised to be consistent with the 

definition in the glossary of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Plain English Guide to the Clean 

Air Act.2 We also included in this 

definition a clarification that a 

‘‘maintenance area’’ is not considered 

an attainment area for transportation 

planning purposes. 

A few commenters expressed 

confusion about the definitions of 

‘‘Available funds’’ and ‘‘Committed 

funds’’ as they relate to air quality 

conformity. We have simplified these 

definitions to remove the phrase ‘‘for 

projects or project phases in the first 

two years of a TIP and/or STIP in air 

quality nonattainment and maintenance 

areas.’’ By deleting this phrase, 

however, we have not removed the 

requirement that projects in the first two 

years of a STIP and/or TIP in air quality 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

be available or committed. This is still 

part of the definition under fiscal 

constraint. The requirement that these 

terms only apply to the first two years 

is already embedded in the regulation 

and does not need to be repeated in the 

definition of the terms ‘‘Available’’ and 

‘‘Committed.’’

A national and regional advocacy 

organization and a few transit agencies 

suggested that ‘‘Full funding grant 

agreement’’ and ‘‘Project construction 

grant agreement’’ be added to the 

examples of ‘‘Committed funds.’’ This 

change has been made. We also received 

a comment that the requirement for 

private funds to be in writing as part of 

‘‘Committed funds’’ would limit private 

participation in transportation projects. 

The FHWA and the FTA find that a 

written commitment is necessary to 

ensure that the private funds ultimately 

are provided and is integral to the 

concept of ‘‘committed funds.’’ This 

change was not made. 

After consultation with the EPA, the 

definition of ‘‘conformity’’ was revised 

based on language from the EPA’s 

conformity Web page 3 and in the EPA’s 

conformity rule (40 CFR 93.100).4

Many MPOs wrote regarding the 

definition of ‘‘congestion management 

process’’ that the definition should 

reference Transportation System 

Management and Operations (TSMO), 

rather than ‘‘management and 

operation’’ to reinforce the principles of 

this emerging practice. The FHWA and 

the FTA do not believe this change 

would enhance the definition and note 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7227 

5These documents, ‘‘Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals With Disabilities, Job Access and 

Reverse Commute,’’ and ‘‘New Freedom Programs: 

Coordinated Planning Guidance for FY 2007 and 

Proposed Circulars’’ were published September 6, 

2006, and are available via the internet at the 

following URLs: http://www.fta.dot.gov/ 

publications/ 

publications_5607.html or http:// 

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/ 

edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6–14733.pdf. 

that the term ‘‘operations and 

management’’ is taken directly from 

statute. No change was made. 

Many national and regional advocacy 

organizations and MPOs and COGs that 

commented on this section were 

concerned about the different uses of 

the term ‘‘consultation’’ in the 

definitions section and in Sections 

450.214 (Development and content of 

the long-range statewide transportation 

plan) and 450.322 (Development and 

content of the metropolitan 

transportation plan). The definition of 

consultation used in § 450.214 

(Development and content of the longrange statewide transportation plan) and 

§ 450.322 (Development and content of 

the metropolitan transportation plan) is 

consistent with the definition in the 

statute found at 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4), 23 

U.S.C. 135(f)(2), 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4), 

and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2) and is 

applicable for those sections. This 

section presents a broad definition of 

‘‘consultation’’ for use throughout the 

rest of the rule. We have added a note 

to the definition of ‘‘consultation’’ to 

recognize that this definition is not the 

one used in §§ 450.214 and 450.322. 

Many national and regional advocacy 

organizations and several MPOs and 

COGs that commented on this section 

also asked that ‘‘periodically’’ be 

removed from the definition of 

‘‘consultation’’ to better reflect that 

consideration of the other party’s view 

and providing them with information 

should occur on a regular and ongoing 

basis, not a periodic basis. This 

definition is taken from the existing rule 

developed in an extensive rulemaking 

process in January 2003 on the nonmetropolitan local official consultation 

process and agreed to by a number of 

stakeholders at that time (68 FR 7419). 

Further, the FHWA and the FTA 

consider ‘‘periodically’’ to mean 

frequently, on regular intervals. This 

change was not made. 

Many transit agencies and State DOTs 

as well as several MPOs, COGs and 

others requested changes to the 

definition of ‘‘coordinated public 

transit-human services transportation 

plan’’ to reduce the degree of procedural 

detail. Accordingly, the definition was 

changed to be consistent with that used 

in the proposed FTA Circulars for 

implementing the 49 U.S.C. 5310, 5316, 

and 5317 programs (New Freedom 

Program Guidance, The Job Access And 

Reverse Commute (JARC) Program, 

Elderly Individuals And Individuals 

With Disabilities Program) published in 

the September 2006.5 In addition, 

commenters proposed the addition of 

guidelines for preparing the coordinated 

public transit-human services 

transportation plan, including 

geographic scope, approval authority, 

and determination of lead agency. To 

ensure maximum flexibility for 

localities to tailor the coordinated 

public transit-human services 

transportation plan preparation process 

to their areas, we will disseminate nonregulatory guidance on optional 

approaches and examples of effective 

practice, along with training and 

technical assistance. 

Several MPOs and COGs expressed 

concern about the definition of 

‘‘coordination’’ because there is no 

resolution mechanism if agencies 

cannot come to agreement. The FHWA 

and the FTA support the development 

of a dispute resolution process for 

‘‘coordination’’ and ‘‘consultation.’’

However, such a process is not required 

by statute and is, therefore, not included 

in this rule. This does not preclude 

State DOTs and/or MPOs from 

developing their own dispute resolution 

processes as part of the transportation 

planning process. 

After further review, the FHWA and 

the FTA have removed the term 

‘‘exclusive’’ from the list of examples in 

the definition of ‘‘design concept.’’ We 

do not want to imply that only 

‘‘exclusive busways’’ can be identified 

as a type of project. 

A proposal was offered to define the 

term ‘‘designated recipient’’ to clarify 

this term in the rule. This definition has 

been added to this section 

Many State DOTs and some national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

that commented on the definition of 

‘‘environmental mitigation activities’’

suggested deleting ‘‘rectify or reduce’’

from the definition because these terms 

are redundant. The FHWA and the FTA 

believe that the terms ‘‘rectify’’ and 

‘‘reduce’’ are related more to the 

discussion of specific projects, not the 

broad planning context. We agree with 

this comment and have deleted these 

words. In addition, MPOs and COGs 

and a few State DOTs and others 

suggested simplifying the definition by 

removing statements of regulatory 

action. We agree and have deleted the 

last sentence of the definition which 

reiterated requirements in the body of 

the rule. Finally, we have modified the 

definition to be clear that strategies may 

not necessarily address potential 

project-level impacts. 

Several major concerns were 

expressed regarding the definition for 

‘‘Financially constrained or Fiscal 

constraint.’’ Most commenters requested 

that three portions of the definition be 

deleted: (1) The phrase ‘‘by source,’’ (2) 

the phrase ‘‘each program year,’’ and (3) 

the phrase ‘‘while the existing system is 

adequately maintained and operated.’’

The requirement for demonstrating 

fiscal constraint by year and by source 

is consistent with, and carries forth 

language in, the planning rule adopted 

in October 1993 (58 FR 5804). The 

FHWA and the FTA consider 

demonstrating funding by year and by 

source necessary for decision-makers 

and the public to have confidence in the 

STIP and TIP as financially constrained. 

However, in response to concerns 

raised, we have changed the definition 

related to ‘‘by source’’ to be consistent 

with the October 1993 planning rule. 

This change clarifies that fiscal 

constraint documentation should 

include committed, available, or 

reasonably available revenue sources. 

Additionally, as a result of the 

extensive comments provided on 

Appendix B (Fiscal constraint of 

transportation plans and programs) we 

have changed the phrase ‘‘while the 

existing system is adequately 

maintained and operated’’ to ‘‘with 

reasonable assurance that the federally 

supported transportation system is 

being adequately operated and 

maintained.’’ We believe this change 

provides flexibility and addresses the 

commenters’ concerns that the FHWA 

and the FTA were overreaching beyond 

the Federally supported transportation 

system. Please see the responses to the 

comments on Appendix B for additional 

background information and 

explanation. Finally, we have also 

clarified the definition to explicitly refer 

to ‘‘the metropolitan transportation 

plan, TIP and STIP.’’

Many State DOTs, a few national and 

regional advocacy organizations, and 

some MPOs and COGs wrote that the 

definition of ‘‘financial plans’’ should 

be changed to note that financial plans 

are not required for STIPs and are not 

required for illustrative projects. The 

FHWA and the FTA agree with both 

comments. We have added a note to the 

definition that financial plans are not 

required for STIPs. We also agree that 

financial plans are not required for 

illustrative projects. § 450.216(m) states 

that ‘‘The financial plan may include, 

for illustrative purposes, additional 

projects that would be included in the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7228 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

adopted STIP if reasonable additional 

resources beyond those identified in the 

financial plan were available.’’ We do 

not believe it is necessary to add a note 

to the definition regarding illustrative 

projects. 

Several State DOTs also wrote 

requesting that the phrase ‘‘as well as 

operating and maintaining the entire 

transportation system’’ be removed from 

the definition of ‘‘financial plans.’’ This 

change has been made 

Proposals were offered to define the 

terms ‘‘full funding grant agreement’’ to 

clarify this term in the rule. This 

definition has been added to this 

section. 

In response to comments regarding 

financial plans and fiscal constraint 

requirements, we have modified the 

definition of ‘‘illustrative project’’ to 

clarify that ‘‘illustrative projects’’ refer 

to additional transportation projects that 

would be included in financially 

constrained transportation plans and 

programs if ‘‘additional resources were 

to become available.’’ This definition 

also notes that illustrative projects may 

(but are not required to) be included in 

the financial plan. 

Representatives of a State DOT and a 

national and regional advocacy 

organization requested the inclusion of 

detailed methodologies for engaging 

private service providers in the 

transportation planning process, as well 

as standards for ascertaining compliance 

with private enterprise provisions and a 

complaint process. To ensure maximum 

flexibility for localities to tailor 

programs to the needs of private service 

providers in their areas, we will rely 

upon non-regulatory guidance, training, 

and technical assistance for 

disseminating information on optional 

approaches to private sector 

participation. 

The FHWA and the FTA noted that 

the proposed rule used an incorrect 

Clean Air Act reference in the definition 

of ‘‘Maintenance area.’’ This reference 

has been corrected. 

After further review, the FHWA and 

the FTA have made slight changes to the 

definition of ‘‘management systems’’ to 

be more permissive. The phrase ‘‘and 

safety’’ was changed to ‘‘or safety’’ and 

‘‘includes’’ was changed to ‘‘can 

include.’’

Some State DOTs and national and 

regional advocacy groups recommended 

removing the phrase ‘‘in the preceding 

program year’’ from the definition of 

‘‘obligated projects.’’ The FHWA and 

the FTA find that the phrase ‘‘in the 

preceding program year’’ is important in 

the context of the annual listing of 

obligated projects (See § 450.332 

(Annual listing of obligated projects)) to 

clarify what projects should be included 

in the list, since TIPs cover multiple 

years. Therefore, this change was not 

made. However, we did change the 

definition to emphasize that funds need 

to be ‘‘authorized by the FHWA or 

awarded as a grant by the FTA.’’

Several State DOTs, MPOs and COGs 

and some national and regional 

advocacy organizations and transit 

agencies expressed confusion over the 

terms ‘‘management and operations’’

and ‘‘operations and management’’ as 

related to the term they propose be 

included in the rule, ‘‘Transportation 

System Management and Operations 

(TSMO).’’ The SAFETEA–LU defined 

‘‘Operational and Management 

Strategies’’ and its relationship to 

metropolitan long-range transportation 

plans. (Operational and management 

strategies means actions and strategies 

aimed at improving the performance of 

existing and planned transportation 

facilities to relieve vehicular congestion 

and maximizing the safety and mobility 

of people and goods (23 U.S.C. 

134(i)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(D)). 

This definition is included in the rule 

with one change. We have removed the 

modifier ‘‘vehicular’’ to emphasize that 

operational and management strategies 

should be considered for all modes. The 

FHWA and the FTA find this term, for 

practical purposes, to be the same as the 

term Transportation System 

Management and Operations currently 

commonly in use by agencies involved 

with transportation. We have chosen to 

continue using the term ‘‘operational 

and management strategies’’ as that is 

the term used in SAFETEA–LU. 

Several State DOTs, MPOs and COGs 

and some national and regional 

advocacy organizations and transit 

agencies also asked for clarification of 

the term ‘‘operations and maintenance.’’

The terms ‘‘operations’’ and 

‘‘maintenance’’ are used in these 

regulations as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101. 

Therefore, we have not repeated the 

definitions here. 

A proposal was offered to define the 

term ‘‘project construction grant 

agreement’’ to clarify this term in the 

rule. This definition has been added to 

this section. 

After further review, we have 

determined it is necessary to clarify the 

definition of ‘‘project selection’’ to 

emphasize these are procedures used by 

MPOs, States, and public transportation 

operators. 

Based on comments, we have changed 

the term ‘‘business’’ in the definition of 

‘‘provider of freight transportation 

services’’ to ‘‘entity.’’ Freight 

transportation providers may include 

other concerns besides businesses. 

A proposal was offered to define the 

term ‘‘public transportation operator’’ to 

clarify this term in the rule. This 

definition has been added to this 

section. 

Several State DOTs and MPOs and 

COGs as well as some transit agencies 

and national and regional advocacy 

organizations noted that the definition 

of ‘‘regionally significant project’’

should not include a reference to ‘‘all 

capacity expanding projects.’’ After 

consultation with the EPA, the FHWA 

and the FTA have changed this 

definition to be consistent with the 

EPA’s transportation conformity rule (40 

CFR 93.101). 

Several of the State DOTs, many 

transit agencies, and a few of the 

national advocacy organizations and 

MPOs and COGs commented that the 

word ‘‘overarching’’ in the definition of 

‘‘Regional Transit Security Strategies’’

was ambiguous. Other MPOs and COGs, 

transit agencies and national and 

regional advocacy organizations wrote 

that the definition was overly specific 

without defining who would be held 

responsible to develop the strategy and 

also expressed concern about possible 

disclosure of security-sensitive 

information in the planning process. 

Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, 

the FHWA and the FTA determined that 

the Department of Homeland Security 

does not require Regional Transit 

Security Strategies in all metropolitan 

areas, at all times. As a result, this term 

has been removed from this section and 

references to the term in § 450.208(h), 

§ 450.214(e), and § 450.306(g) also have 

been removed from the rule. 

Alternatively, this language has been 

replaced, in these sections, with a 

reference to ‘‘other transit safety and 

security planning and review processes, 

plans, and programs, as appropriate.’’

The docket included several 

comments regarding the definitions for 

‘‘revision,’’ ‘‘amendment,’’

‘‘administrative modification,’’ and 

‘‘update.’’ The definition of ‘‘revision’’

has been revised to use the terms 

‘‘major’’ and ‘‘minor’’ rather than 

‘‘significant’’ and ‘‘non-significant,’’

consistent with the comments received 

and changes to the related terms. 

A State DOT commented on the 

definition of ‘‘State implementation 

plan (SIP).’’ After consultation with 

EPA, this definition was revised to cite 

applicable sections of the Clear Air Act 

and to be consistent with the definition 

in the Clean Air Act and EPA’s 

conformity rule (40 CFR 93.101) for 

‘‘applicable implementation plan.’’

The docket included a comment 

requesting clarification of the term 

‘‘staged’’ in the definition for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7229 

‘‘Statewide transportation improvement 

program (STIP).’’ We have clarified this 

definition to describe the STIP as a 

‘‘prioritized listing/program’’ and to 

reiterate that it must cover a period of 

four years. Similar changes were made 

to the definition of ‘‘Transportation 

improvement program (TIP).’’

Some State DOTs and a national and 

regional advocacy organization 

suggested that the reference to ‘‘in order 

to meet the regular schedule as 

prescribed by Federal statute’’ be 

removed from the definition of 

‘‘Update.’’ A few MPOs and COGs 

questioned what would constitute an 

‘‘update’’ and what was meant by 

‘‘complete change.’’ We agree with these 

concerns, have removed these phrases 

and revised and simplified this 

definition to ‘‘Update means making 

current a long-range statewide 

transportation plan, metropolitan 

transportation plan, TIP, or STIP 

through a comprehensive review.’’

Based on comments, we note in this 

definition that an ‘‘update’’ requires a 

20-year horizon year for metropolitan 

transportation plans and long-range 

statewide transportation plans and a 

four-year program period for TIPs and 

STIPs. 

Several MPOs and other organizations 

asked for clarification of the term 

‘‘visualization.’’ The FHWA and the 

FTA have changed ‘‘employed’’ to 

‘‘used’’ in the ‘‘Visualization 

techniques’’ definition. Further, we 

agree that there is a need for more 

technical information on the use of 

visualization techniques and we intend 

to provide technical reports and 

guidance subsequent to the publication 

of this rule. 

Proposals were offered to define the 

terms ‘‘advanced construction,’’

‘‘encouraged to,’’ ‘‘intercity bus,’’

‘‘interested parties,’’ ‘‘MPO staff,’’

‘‘public transportation provider,’’

‘‘reasonable access,’’ ‘‘shall,’’ and 

‘‘should.’’ The FHWA and the FTA 

believe these terms are generally well 

understood and do not require 

additional detail. 

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation 

Planning and Programming 

Section 450.200 Purpose 

No comments were received on this 

section and no changes were made. 

Section 450.202 Applicability 

No comments were received on this 

section and no changes were made. 

Section 450.204 Definitions 

No comments were received on this 

section and no changes were made. 

Section 450.206 Scope of the 

Statewide Transportation Planning 

Process 

There were more than 20 separate 

comments on this section with the most 

coming from State DOTs, followed by 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations. A small number of 

comments came from MPOs and COGs 

and providers of public transportation. 

In comments on this section and 

§ 450.306 (Scope of the metropolitan 

transportation planning process), many 

MPOs and COGs, some national and 

regional advocacy organizations and a 

few State DOTs noted that paragraph 

(a)(3) embellished the statutory language 

for the ‘‘security’’ planning factor. 

Organizations that commented on this 

issue were concerned that the expanded 

language would require State DOTs and 

MPOs to go far beyond their traditional 

responsibilities in planning and 

developing transportation projects, 

which was not intended by the 

SAFETEA-LU. The FHWA and the FTA 

agree and have revised the language in 

paragraph (a)(3) to match the language 

in statute. 

Most of the State DOTs and several of 

the national and regional advocacy 

organizations that commented on this 

section said that the text in paragraph 

(b) should be revised similar to the text 

in the October 1993 planning rule 

acknowledging that the degree of 

consideration will reflect the scale and 

complexity of issues within the State. 

The FHWA and the FTA agree with 

these comments and have revised the 

rule accordingly. We have adopted the 

October 1993 planning rule language 

with one change. The phrase 

‘‘transportation problems’’ was changed 

to ‘‘transportation systems 

development.’’

After further review, we have clarified 

paragraph (c) to be more specific and to 

mirror the language in 23 U.S.C. 

135(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2). The 

paragraph now specifically refers to 

‘‘any court under title 23 U.S.C., 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 53, subchapter II of title 

5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, or title 5 U.S.C. 

Chapter 7’’ and to the ‘‘statewide 

transportation’’ planning process 

finding. 

A small number of national and 

regional advocacy organizations and 

State DOTs that commented on this 

section said they would like the FHWA 

and the FTA to develop and/or 

encourage the use of performance 

measures when State DOTs consider the 

planning factors listed in this section. 

While the FHWA and the FTA 

encourage the use of performance 

measures, the flexibility afforded the 

State DOTs and MPOs in implementing 

the transportation planning process 

gives them wide latitude to develop a 

process that is appropriate for their 

jurisdiction. We believe this issue is 

best addressed in guidance and 

technical assistance. 

Section 450.208 Coordination of 

Planning Process Activities 

There were almost 100 separate 

comments on this section mostly from 

State DOTs, followed by national and 

regional advocacy organizations. A 

number of comments came from MPOs 

and COGs with a small number from 

public transportation providers or 

Federal agencies. 

In some of the comments from 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations, MPOs and COGs, and 

others, the FHWA and the FTA were 

asked to expand the scope of the 

transportation planning process to 

include a variety of other issues and 

concerns. In response to these 

comments, we have added ‘‘at a 

minimum’’ to paragraph (a) to 

emphasize the flexibility for State DOTs 

to include more in their statewide 

transportation planning process than is 

listed in this section. 

Several MPOs and COGs that had 

comments on this section suggested 

clarification of paragraph (a)(1) 

regarding the State’s use of information 

and studies provided by MPOs. The text 

from this paragraph in part carries 

forward but simplifies text from 23 CFR 

450.210 of the October 1993 planning 

rule. The FHWA and the FTA find that 

the language provides reasonable 

flexibility to respond to different 

circumstances while reinforcing the 

importance of information and technical 

studies as a foundation in transportation 

planning. No changes were made to this 

paragraph. 

Many of the State DOTs that 

commented on this section indicated 

that coordination referenced in 

paragraph (a)(2) should not extend to 

private businesses. At the same time, 

many of the MPOs, COGs and national 

and regional advocacy organizations, as 

well as a public transportation provider 

that commented on this section wrote in 

support of the section and some 

requested that ‘‘consult’’ replace 

‘‘coordinate.’’

The requirements in this paragraph 

come from the statutory language; 

therefore, no change was made. The 

FHWA and the FTA want to provide 

State DOTs flexibility to determine how 

to coordinate with statewide trade and 

economic planning activities and the 

level or coordination that needs to take 

place within the planning process. The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7230 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

6These documents, ‘‘Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals With Disabilities, Job Access and 

Reverse Commute,’’ and ‘‘New Freedom Programs: 

Coordinated Planning Guidance for FY 2007 and 

Proposed Circulars’’ were published September 6, 

2006, and are available via the internet at the 

following URL: http://www.fta.dot.gov/ 

publications/publications_5607.html. 

FHWA has made available information 

related to Public-Private Partnership 

opportunities, including analyses of 

contractual agreements formed between 

public agencies and private sector 

entities, on its Web site at: http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/. If necessary, 

we will provide guidance subsequent to 

the rule if more clarity is needed 

regarding this coordination. 

Many of the State DOTs that 

commented on this section said that 

coordination in paragraph (a)(3) exceeds 

the requirement in the statute. At the 

same time, several of the national and 

regional advocacy organizations and a 

Federal agency commented in support 

of the language in the proposed rule. 

The FHWA and the FTA find that the 

proposed language does exceed the 

intent of the statute, and have revised 

the rule to more closely reflect the 

statutory language, by changing 

‘‘coordinate planning’’ to ‘‘consider the 

concerns of.’’

Many of the State DOTs that 

commented on this section suggested 

placing the word ‘‘affected’’ before 

‘‘local elected officials’’ in paragraph 

(a)(4). At the same time, some of the 

MPOs and COGs and national and 

regional advocacy organizations that 

provided comments on this section 

suggested changing ‘‘consider’’ to 

‘‘consult,’’ which is used in § 450.210 

(Interested parties, public involvement, 

and consultation). The text follows the 

statutory language. The FHWA and the 

FTA considered both groups of 

comments and determined that using 

the statutory language for this paragraph 

without amplification best meets the 

intent of the statute. 

Many of the State DOTs that 

commented on this section said that the 

text in paragraph (a)(6) should follow 

the statutory language (23 U.S.C. 

135(e)(1)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(e)(1)(3)). 

The FHWA and the FTA agree and 

revised the rule accordingly. 

Several of the State DOTs that 

commented on this section objected to 

the phrase ‘‘establish a forum’’ in 

paragraph (a)(7), while a smaller 

number supported the text. The FHWA 

and the FTA want to emphasize the 

importance of information and technical 

studies as a foundation in transportation 

planning. While there is no statutory 

basis to require ‘‘establish[ing] a forum,’’

this paragraph has been revised to more 

closely reflect the intent from 

§ 450.210(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the October 

1993 rule regarding coordination of data 

collection and analyses with MPOs and 

public transportation operators. 

After further review, the FHWA and 

the FTA have modified the last sentence 

of paragraph (c) to be consistent with 23 

U.S.C. 135(c)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(c)(2) 

regarding multistate agreements and 

compacts. 

Many of the State DOTs and a few of 

the national and regional advocacy 

organizations that provided comments 

on this section said the text in 

paragraphs (e) and (f) went beyond 

statutory requirements. The FHWA and 

the FTA agree with these comments and 

revised the rule accordingly by changing 

‘‘are encouraged to’’ to ‘‘may’’ in 

paragraph (e) and adding ‘‘to the 

maximum extent practicable’’ to 

paragraph (f). 

Most transit agencies, several State 

DOTs, MPOs, COGs, and others that 

commented on this section expressed 

concern or confusion about the 

requirement in paragraph (g) for the 

statewide transportation planning 

process to be consistent with the 

development of coordinated public 

transit-human services transportation 

plans. Several commenters requested 

the addition of procedural detail on the 

coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plan, including 

geographic scope, approval authority, 

and determination of lead agency. Some 

commenters recommended removing 

the requirement entirely. We also 

received a comment questioning 

whether metropolitan and statewide 

transportation planning processes 

should be consistent with the 

coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plan, or vice 

versa. 

To ensure maximum flexibility for 

localities to undertake a coordinated 

planning process that may be uniquely 

tailored to their area, we have not 

included additional detailed 

requirements in the rule. The FHWA 

and the FTA will disseminate nonregulatory guidance, complemented by a 

wide array of effective practice case 

studies and supported by training and 

technical assistance, on the coordinated 

public transit-human services 

transportation plan. The definition of 

the coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plan was 

changed to be consistent with that used 

in the proposed FTA Circulars for 

implementing the 49 U.S.C. 5310, 5316, 

and 5317 programs (New Freedom 

Program Guidance And Application 

Instructions, The Job Access And 

Reverse Commute (JARC) Program 

Guidance And Application Instructions, 

Elderly Individuals And Individuals 

With Disabilities Program Guidance 

And Application Instructions) 

respectively, published on September 6, 

2006.6 Additionally, provisions for 

promoting consistency between the 

planning processes were revised to 

clarify that the coordinated public 

transit-human services transportation 

plan should be prepared in full 

coordination and be consistent with the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process. The revisions also are intended 

to add flexibility in how the coordinated 

transportation plans would be prepared. 

Many of the State DOTs, several 

transit agencies, and a few of the 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations that provided comments 

on this section, said the text in 

paragraph (h) went beyond statutory 

requirements. Several transit agencies 

and a few State DOTs and others 

suggested deleting paragraph (h) due to 

the confidential nature of Regional 

Transit Security Strategies (RTSS). An 

RTSS is not required of all metropolitan 

areas and States across the U.S. 

Reference to the RTSS was removed 

from paragraph (h). Instead, we have 

added a reference to ‘‘other transit safety 

and security planning and review 

processes, plans, and programs, as 

appropriate.’’

Section 450.210 Interested Parties, 

Public Involvement, and Consultation 

The docket included 33 documents 

that contained about 60 comments on 

this section, with many from State 

DOTs, national and regional advocacy 

organizations and MPOs and COGs. 

Many of the State DOTs and some of 

the national and regional advocacy 

organizations said that State DOTs 

should not be required to document the 

public involvement process. The FHWA 

and the FTA find that an essential 

element of an effective public 

involvement process is the opportunity 

for the public to understand when, how, 

and where public comment can occur. 

It is important to open, effective public 

involvement that the process be 

documented and available for public 

review. Therefore, we have retained the 

requirement for a documented public 

involvement process. 

Some of the MPOs and some of the 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations said they would like to 

expand the list of interested parties in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i). Representatives of 

private bus operators requested specific 

mention in the regulation. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7231 

The list of interested parties in the 

regulation is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 

135(f)(3)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(A), 

as amended by the SAFETEA-LU, and is 

sufficiently broad to encompass and 

have relevance to all of the suggested 

additional parties. The list illustrates 

groups that typically have an interest in 

statewide transportation planning, but 

does not preclude States from providing 

information about transportation 

planning to other types of individuals or 

organizations. The FHWA and the FTA 

note that 49 U.S.C. 5307(c) requires 

grant recipients to make available to the 

public information on the proposed 

program of projects and associated 

funding. 

Specifically in regard to MPOs, States 

shall coordinate with MPOs under 

§ 450.208 (Coordination of planning 

process activities). Therefore, a 

reference to MPOs here would be 

redundant and potentially confusing 

since this section does not require 

coordination with interested parties. No 

change was made to add MPOs to this 

paragraph. 

Many of the State DOTs and some of 

the national and regional advocacy 

organizations also said that State DOTs 

should not be required to document the 

non-metropolitan local official 

consultation process. The rule does not 

change the regulations published in the 

Federal Register on January 23 (68 FR 

3176) and February 14, 2003 (68 FR 

7418) regarding consultation with nonmetropolitan local officials. Those 

regulations were developed based on 

significant review and comment by 

State DOTs and non-metropolitan local 

officials and their representatives. At 

that time most State DOTs and national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

supported the regulations. Therefore, 

the only change we have made to 

paragraph (b) is to change ‘‘revisions’’ to 

‘‘changes,’’ since ‘‘revision’’ is now 

specifically defined in the rule and, by 

that definition, is not an appropriate 

term for this paragraph. 

Some of the State DOTs and some 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations said that the text 

encouraging State DOTs to document 

their process for consulting with Indian 

Tribal Governments should be 

eliminated. The commenters believe 

that documenting this consultation 

process goes beyond requirements in 

statute. We disagree. The FHWA and the 

FTA support efforts to consult with 

Indian Tribal governments and find that 

documentation of consultation 

processes are essential to a party’s 

ability to understand when, how, and 

where the party can be involved. Upon 

further consideration, to strengthen the 

involvement of Indian Tribal 

governments in the statewide 

transportation planning process, we 

have changed paragraph (c) from ‘‘States 

are encouraged to’’ to ‘‘States shall, to 

the extent practicable.’’

Section 450.212 Transportation 

Planning Studies and Project 

Development 

Section 1308 of the TEA–21 required 

the Secretary to eliminate the major 

investment study (MIS) set forth in 

§ 450.318 of title 23, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as a separate requirement, 

and promulgate regulations to integrate 

such requirement, as appropriate, as 

part of the analysis required to be 

undertaken pursuant to the planning 

provisions of title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 53 and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) for Federal-aid highway and 

transit projects. The purpose of this 

section and § 450.318 (Transportation 

planning studies and project 

development) is to implement this 

requirement of Section 1308 of the 

TEA–21 and eliminate the MIS as a 

stand-alone requirement. A phrase has 

been added to paragraph (a) to clarify 

the purpose of this section. 

The docket included more than 20 

documents that contained more than 50 

comments on this section with about 

two-thirds from State DOTs and the rest 

from MPOs or COGs, and national and 

regional advocacy organizations. The 

comments on this section were similar 

to, and often referenced, the comments 

on § 450.318 (Transportation planning 

studies and project development). 

Most of the comments received 

supported the concept of linking 

planning and NEPA but opposed 

including Appendix A in the rule. The 

purpose of an Appendix to a regulation 

is to improve the quality or use of a rule, 

without imposing new requirements or 

restrictions. Appendices provide 

supplemental, background or 

explanatory information that illustrates 

or amplifies a rule. Because Appendix A 

provides amplifying information about 

how State DOTs, MPOs and public 

transportation operators can choose to 

conduct transportation planning-level 

choices and analyses so they may be 

adopted or incorporated into the process 

required by NEPA, but does not impose 

new requirements, the FHWA and the 

FTA find that Appendix A is useful 

information to be included in support of 

this and other sections of the rule. A 

phrase has been added to paragraph (c) 

to clarify this point. Additionally, we 

have added disclaimer language at the 

introduction of Appendix A. 

The FHWA and the FTA recognize 

commenters’ concerns about Appendix 

A, including the recommendation that 

this information be kept as guidance 

rather than be made a part of the rule. 

First, information in an Appendix to a 

regulation does not carry regulatory 

authority in itself, but rather serves as 

guidance to further explain the 

regulation. Secondly, as stated above, 

Section 1308 of TEA–21 required the 

Secretary to eliminate the MIS as a 

separate requirement, and promulgate 

regulations to integrate such 

requirement, as appropriate, as part of 

the transportation planning process. 

Appendix A fulfills that Congressional 

direction by providing explanatory 

information regarding how the MIS 

requirement can be integrated into the 

transportation planning process. 

Inclusion of this explanatory 

information as an Appendix to the 

regulation will make the information 

more readily available to users of the 

regulation, and will provide notice to all 

interested persons of the agencies’

official guidance on MIS integration 

with the planning process. Attachment 

of Appendix A to this rule will provide 

convenient reference for State DOTs, 

MPOs and public transportation 

operator(s) who choose to incorporate 

planning results and decisions in the 

NEPA process. It will also make the 

information readily available to the 

public. Additionally, the FHWA and the 

FTA will work with Federal 

environmental, regulatory, and resource 

agencies to incorporate the principles of 

Appendix A in their day-to-day NEPA 

policies and procedures related to their 

involvement in highway and transit 

projects. For the reasons stated above, 

after careful consideration of all 

comments, the FHWA and the FTA have 

decided to attach Appendix A to the 

final rule as proposed in the NPRM. 

Most State DOTs and several MPOs 

and COGs, and national and regional 

advocacy organizations that commented 

on this section were concerned that the 

language in paragraph (a) is too 

restrictive. The FHWA and the FTA 

agree that planning studies need not 

‘‘meet the requirements of NEPA’’ to be 

incorporated into NEPA documents. 

Instead, we have changed the language 

in paragraph (a) to ‘‘consistent with’’

NEPA. In addition, we have added the 

phrase ‘‘multimodal, systems-level’’

before ‘‘corridor or subarea’’ to 

emphasize the ‘‘planning’’ venue for 

environmental consideration. 

Commenters on this section also 

requested that the rule clarify that the 

State DOT has the responsibility for 

conducting corridor or subarea studies 

in the statewide transportation planning 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7232 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

process. The FHWA and the FTA 

recognize that the State DOT is 

responsible for the statewide 

transportation planning process. 

However, we do not want to preclude 

MPOs or public transportation 

operators, in consultation or jointly with 

the State DOT, from conducting corridor 

or subarea studies. Therefore, we have 

changed paragraph (a) to add the 

sentence ‘‘To the extent practicable, 

development of these transportation 

planning studies shall involve 

consultation with, or joint efforts 

among, the State(s), MPO(s), and/or 

public transportation operator(s).’’

Some State DOTs suggested 

incorporating planning decisions rather 

than documents into the NEPA process. 

The FHWA and the FTA find that 

decisions made as part of the planning 

studies may be used as part of the 

overall project development process and 

have changed paragraph (a) to include 

the word ‘‘decisions’’ as well as 

‘‘results.’’ It is important to note, 

however, that a decision made during 

the transportation planning process 

should be presented in a documented 

study or other source materials to be 

included in the project development 

process. Documented studies or other 

source materials may be incorporated 

directly or by reference into NEPA 

documents, as noted in § 450.212(b). We 

have added ‘‘or other source material’’

to paragraph (b) to recognize source 

materials other than planning studies 

may be used as part of the overall 

project development process. 

It is important to note that this section 

does not require NEPA-level evaluation 

in the transportation planning process. 

Planning studies need to be of sufficient 

disclosure and embrace the principles of 

NEPA so as to provide a strong 

foundation for the inclusion of planning 

decisions in the NEPA process. The 

FHWA and the FTA also reiterate the 

voluntary nature of this section and the 

amplifying information in Appendix A. 

States, transit operators and/or MPOs 

may choose to undertake studies which 

may be used in the NEPA process, but 

are not required to do so. 

Several State DOTs and national and 

regional advocacy organizations were 

concerned about the identification and 

discussion of environmental mitigation. 

They did not believe that detail on 

environmental mitigation activities was 

appropriate in the transportation 

planning process. The FHWA and the 

FTA agree. Paragraph (a)(5) calls for 

‘‘preliminary identification of 

environmental impacts and 

environmental mitigation.’’ The FHWA 

and the FTA believe that the term 

‘‘preliminary’’ adequately indicates that 

State DOTs are not expected to provide 

the same level of detail on impacts and 

mitigation as would be expected during 

the NEPA process. 

Based on comments on Appendix A, 

we added the phrase ‘‘directly or’’ in 

paragraph (b), to indicate the use of 

publicly available planning documents 

for subsequent NEPA documents. 

Also based on comments on 

Appendix A, we added the phrase 

‘‘systems-level’’ in paragraph (b)(2), to 

emphasize that these corridor or subarea 

studies are conducted during the 

planning process at a broader scale than 

project specific studies under NEPA. 

Several State DOTs and many others 

who submitted comments on this 

section noted that the word ‘‘continual’’

in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) provides the 

public with more opportunity to 

comment than is necessary. We agree 

and have replaced ‘‘continual’’ with 

‘‘reasonable’’ in this paragraph, 

consistent with the terminology in 

§ 450.316(a) (Interested parties, 

participation and consultation). Also in 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii) a number of 

commenters noted that the paragraph 

references the metropolitan 

transportation planning process when it 

should reference the statewide 

transportation planning process. This 

change has been made. 

Several State DOTs and a national and 

regional advocacy organization 

suggested adding a ‘‘savings clause’’ in 

a new paragraph. A savings clause 

would lessen the likelihood that the 

new provisions regarding corridor or 

subarea studies would have unintended 

consequences. The specific elements 

requested to be included in the ‘‘savings 

clause’’ were statements that: (a) The 

corridor and subarea studies are 

voluntary; (b) corridor and subarea 

studies can be incorporated into the 

NEPA process even if they are not 

specifically mentioned in the long-range 

statewide transportation plan; (c) 

corridor and subarea studies are not the 

sole means for linking planning and 

NEPA; and (d) reiterate the statutory 

prohibition on applying NEPA 

requirements to the transportation 

planning process. The concepts 

recommended in the ‘‘savings clause’’

all reiterate provisions found elsewhere 

in the rule or statute. The FHWA and 

the FTA do not agree that it is necessary 

to repeat those provisions in this 

section. 

The docket included a comment that 

corridor or subarea studies should be 

required, not voluntary, to be included 

in NEPA studies. Given the opposition 

to requiring NEPA-level analysis in the 

transportation planning process, the 

FHWA and the FTA find that the 

permissive nature of this section and 

Appendix A strikes the appropriate 

balance. 

The docket also included a question 

asking what needs to be included in an 

agreement with the NEPA lead agencies 

to accomplish this integration. The 

FHWA and the FTA have determined 

that identification of what information 

appropriately belongs in the agreement 

should be disseminated as nonregulatory guidance, complemented by a 

wide array of effective practice case 

studies and supported by training and 

technical assistance. No change was 

made to the rule. We have not required 

that corridor or subarea studies be 

included or incorporated into NEPA 

studies. 

Section 450.214 Development and 

Content of the Long-Range Statewide 

Transportation Plan 

The docket included approximately 

50 documents that contained about 50 

comments on this section with about 

one-third from State DOTs, one-half 

from national and regional advocacy 

organizations, and the rest from MPOs 

and COGs, city/county/State agencies, 

general public and transit agencies. 

Many comments were received 

regarding the comparison of 

transportation plans with conservation 

plans. According to statute (23 U.S.C. 

135(f)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2)(D)), 

for long-range statewide transportation 

plans, comparison must be made to both 

conservation plans and inventories of 

natural/historic resources; whereas 

language relating to metropolitan 

transportation plans (23 U.S.C. 

134(i)(4)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4)(B)) 

requires comparison to State 

conservation plans/maps or comparison 

to inventories of natural or historic 

resources. The rule language is 

consistent with what is in statute. 

Therefore, no changes were made to the 

rule language. 

A few comments were received 

pertaining to the lack of a required 

financial plan for the long-range 

statewide transportation plan. Most of 

the MPOs and COGs and several of the 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations were in favor of adding 

this requirement. One State DOT voiced 

opinion that this should remain an 

option, but not be mandated. 

The FHWA and the FTA agree that 

the long-range statewide transportation 

plan may include a financial plan. This 

optional financial plan is different from 

the fiscal constraint requirement for the 

STIP. This financial plan is a broad look 

at the future revenue forecast and 

strategies needed to fund future projects 

over a 20-year horizon. However, the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7233 

7This document, ‘‘An Overview of the National 

Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s 

Transportation Network’’ dated May, 2006, is 

available via the internet at the following URL: 

http://www.fightgridlocknow.gov. 

SAFETEA-LU made it clear that the 

financial plan should not be required for 

a long-range statewide transportation 

plan. Therefore, no change was made to 

the rule. 

A few comments were received 

stating that the 20-year horizon for the 

long-range statewide transportation plan 

should only be required as of the 

effective date of the plan adoption, 

which would be similar to language 

used for the effective date of the 

metropolitan transportation plan. The 

FWHA and the FTA agree with this 

comment and have added ‘‘at the time 

of adoption’’ to paragraph (a). 

DOT Congestion Initiative: On May 

16, 2006, the U.S. Secretary of 

Transportation announced a national 

initiative to address congestion related 

to highway, freight and aviation. The 

intent of the ‘‘National Strategy to 

Reduce Congestion on America’s 

Transportation Network’’ 7 is to provide 

a blueprint for Federal, State and local 

officials to tackle congestion. The States 

and MPO(s) are encouraged to seek 

Urban Partnership Agreements with a 

handful of communities willing to 

demonstrate new congestion relief 

strategies and encourages States to pass 

legislation giving the private sector a 

broader opportunity to invest in 

transportation. It calls for more 

widespread deployment of new 

operational technologies and practices 

that end traffic tie ups, designates new 

interstate ‘‘corridors of the future,’’

targets port and border congestion, and 

expands aviation capacity. 

U.S. DOT encourages the State DOTs 

and MPOs to consider and implement 

strategies, specifically related to 

highway and transit operations and 

expansion, freight, transportation 

pricing, other vehicle-based charges 

techniques, etc. The mechanism that the 

State DOTs and MPOs employ to 

explore these strategies is within their 

discretion. The U.S. DOT will focus its 

resources, funding, staff and technology 

to cut traffic jams and relieve freight 

bottlenecks. 

To encourage States to address 

congestion in the long-range statewide 

transportation plan, the following 

sentence was added to paragraph (b): 

‘‘The long-range statewide 

transportation plan may consider 

projects and strategies that address areas 

or corridors where current or projected 

congestion threatens the efficient 

functioning of key elements of the 

State’s transportation system.’’

Several comments were received 

stating that the security requirements of 

paragraph (e) go beyond what was 

intended in the SAFETEA-LU. Based on 

these comments, the concern for 

possible disclosure of security-sensitive 

information in the planning process and 

the determination that a Regional 

Transit Security Study is not required 

universally of all metropolitan areas and 

States, this reference has been removed 

from the rule and instead we have 

added a reference to ‘‘other transit safety 

and security planning and review 

processes, plans, and programs, as 

appropriate.’’ Several commenters also 

were concerned about the distinction 

between ‘‘homeland’’ and ‘‘personal’’

security in the planning factors found at 

§ 450.206 (Scope of the statewide 

transportation planning process). This 

distinction has been removed from 

§ 450.206 (Scope of the statewide 

transportation planning process) and 

§ 450.306 (Scope of the metropolitan 

transportation planning process). 

Some State DOTs and a few advocacy 

organizations commented that ‘‘types 

of’’ should be added to the discussion 

of potential environmental mitigation 

activities requirement in paragraph (j) to 

emphasize the policy or strategic nature 

of these discussions. The rule language 

is consistent with statute (23 U.S.C. 

135(f)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(4)), 

therefore this change was not made. 

However, we have added a sentence to 

this paragraph recognizing that longrange statewide transportation plans 

may focus on ‘‘policies, programs, or 

strategies, rather than at the project 

level.’’ The last sentence of this 

paragraph was also deleted because 

Appendix A does not provide additional 

information relevant to the subject of 

this paragraph. 

In paragraph (l), in response to 

comments from State DOTs, national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

and several others, we have added the 

phrase ‘‘but is not required to.’’ The 

purpose of this addition is to reinforce 

that the financial plan is not required to 

include illustrative projects. We also 

corrected the language in the last 

sentence: ‘‘were available’’ was changed 

to ‘‘were to become available.’’

Several State DOTs and a few national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

requested in regard to paragraph (p) that 

long-range statewide transportation 

plans be provided to the FHWA and the 

FTA only when ‘‘amended’’ not 

‘‘revised.’’ We agree and have made this 

change. 

Section 450.216 Development and 

Content of the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) 

The FHWA and the FTA received 

over 100 separate comments on this 

section with the most from State DOTs 

followed by national and regional 

advocacy organizations. MPOs and 

COGs, local governments and public 

transportation providers also provided 

comments on this section. 

Several State DOTs and national and 

regional advocacy organizations and a 

few MPOs and COGs said in regards to 

paragraph (a) that State DOTs should be 

allowed to have a statewide 

transportation improvement program 

(STIP) of more than four years where the 

additional year(s) are not illustrative. 

The four-year scope is consistent with 

the time period required by the 

SAFETEA-LU. While State DOTs are not 

prohibited from developing STIPs 

covering a longer time period, in 

accordance with statute, the FHWA and 

the FTA can only recognize and take 

subsequent action on projects included 

in the first four years of the STIP. State 

DOTs may show projects as illustrative 

after the first four years, as well as in the 

long-range statewide transportation 

plan. Therefore, no change was made to 

this section of the rule. 

After consultation with EPA and in 

response to comments from a few 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations, the language in paragraph 

(b) has been changed to clarify that 

projects in the ‘‘donut areas’’ of a 

nonattainment or maintenance area 

must be included in the regional 

emissions analysis that supported the 

conformity determination of the 

associated metropolitan TIP before they 

are added to the STIP. The 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93) covers the requirements for 

including projects in the ‘‘donut area’’

in the regional emissions analysis. 

A public transportation provider said 

in regard to paragraph (g) that security 

projects should be added to the list of 

projects exempted from listing in the 

STIP. Because security projects are often 

funded with title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 

or title 23 U.S.C. funds, they must be 

included in the STIP. No change was 

made to this paragraph. 

However, after further review, the 

FHWA and the FTA have determined it 

is appropriate to remove the phrase 

‘‘federally supported’’ from the 

beginning of paragraph (g) because it is 

redundant. The paragraph already 

requires projects to be included if they 

are funded under title 23 U.S.C. and 

title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. We have also 

changed paragraph (g) to allow the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7234 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

8This document, ‘‘Interim FHWA Major Project 

Guidance,’’ dated January 27, 2006, is available via 

the internet at the following URL: http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/mega/ 

012706.cfm. 

9The guidance memo entitled ‘‘Flexible Funding 

for Highway and Transit and Funding for Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Programs,’’ dated February 6, 2006, 

is available via the internet at the following URL: 

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

inclusion of the exempted projects, but 

do not require that they be included. 

Further, we have added ‘‘Safety projects 

funded under 23 U.S.C. 402’’ to 

paragraph (g)(1) to be consistent with 

the October 1993 planning rule. 

When proposing Appendix B to the 

rule, the FHWA and the FTA intended 

to raise the level of awareness and 

importance in developing fiscally 

constrained transportation plans, TIPs, 

and STIPs to States, MPOs, and public 

transportation operators. Since its 

introduction under the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102–240), fiscal 

constraint has remained a prominent 

aspect of transportation plan and 

program development, carrying through 

to the TEA–21 and now to the 

SAFETEA–LU. The FHWA and the FTA 

acknowledge that Appendix B contains 

a combination of guidance, amplifying 

information and additional criteria. 

Given the level of controversy regarding 

Appendix B, it has been removed from 

the rule. Therefore, the sentence 

referencing Appendix B in paragraph (l) 

has been deleted. 

Many State DOTs and several national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

commented in regard to paragraph (h), 

that they should not have to 

demonstrate financial constraint for 

projects included in the STIP funded 

with non-FHWA and non-FTA funds. 

However, this requirement is consistent 

with and carries forward the 

requirement that was implemented with 

the October 1993 planning rule. In 

addition, for informational purposes 

and air quality analysis in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas, 

regionally significant non-Federal 

projects shall be included in the STIP. 

Therefore, the FHWA and the FTA have 

retained this portion of paragraph (h). 

We have, however, simplified the 

paragraph slightly to combine the last 

two sentences. 

Most State DOTs and national and 

regional advocacy organizations that 

commented on this section, 

recommended in regards to paragraph 

(i) that after the first year of the STIP, 

only the ‘‘likely’’ or ‘‘possible’’ (rather 

than ‘‘proposed’’) categories of funds 

should be identified by source and year. 

The FHWA and the FTA agree with this 

suggestion, with the exception of 

projects in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas for which funding in 

the first two years must be available or 

committed. Paragraph (i)(3) has been 

changed to specifically reference the 

amount of ‘‘Federal funds’’ proposed to 

be obligated and to identify separate 

standards for the first year and for the 

subsequent years of the STIP. 

One of the features of Appendix B 

that the FHWA and the FTA find merits 

inclusion in the rule is ‘‘year of 

expenditure dollars.’’ The following has 

been added to paragraph (l): ‘‘Revenue 

and cost estimates for the STIP must use 

an inflation rate(s) to reflect ‘year of 

expenditure dollars,’ based on 

reasonable financial principles and 

information, developed cooperatively by 

the State, MPOs, and public 

transportation operators.’’ This language 

expresses the desire of the FHWA and 

the FTA for revenue and cost estimates 

to be reflected in ‘‘year of expenditure 

dollars.’’ We recognize that it might take 

some time for State DOTs and MPOs to 

convert their metropolitan 

transportation plans, STIPs and TIPs to 

reflect this requirement. Therefore, we 

will allow a grace period until 

December 11, 2007, during which time 

State DOTs and MPOs may reflect 

revenue and cost estimates in ‘‘constant 

dollars.’’ After December 11, 2007, 

revenues and cost estimates must use 

‘‘year of expenditure’’ dollars. This 

requirement is consistent with the 

January 27, 2006, document ‘‘Interim 

FHWA Major Project Guidance.’’ 8

Please see the responses to the 

comments on Appendix B to the NPRM 

for additional background information 

and explanation. In addition, to 

reinforce that the financial plan is not 

required to include illustrative projects, 

we have added the phrase ‘‘but is not 

required to’’ to this paragraph. Finally, 

we have deleted the reference to 

Appendix B in this paragraph because 

Appendix B is not included as part of 

this rule. 

Regarding paragraph (m), many State 

DOTs, national and regional advocacy 

organizations and a few MPOs and 

COGs questioned having to demonstrate 

their ability to adequately operate and 

maintain the entire transportation 

system. The FHWA and the FTA have 

revised paragraph (m) to delete the 

phrase ‘‘while the entire transportation 

system is being adequately operated and 

maintained.’’ Instead, we have added 

‘‘while federally-supported facilities are 

being adequately operated and 

maintained.’’ Further, as discussed in 

the response to the comments on 

Appendix B, we have added to this 

paragraph: ‘‘For purposes of 

transportation operations and 

maintenance, the STIP shall include 

financial information containing 

system-level estimates of costs and 

revenue sources reasonably expected to 

be available to adequately operate and 

maintain Federal-aid highways (as 

defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and 

public transportation (as defined by title 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53).’’

Many State DOTs and several national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

said regarding paragraph (m) that State 

DOTs should not have to demonstrate 

financial constraint in the STIP by year 

or by source of funding. Based on nearly 

13 years of implementing this 

requirement, the FHWA and the FTA 

consider demonstrating funding by year 

necessary for decision-makers and the 

public to have confidence in the STIP as 

financially constrained. This change 

was not made. The specific reference to 

‘‘by source’’ has been removed. 

However, the requirement for State 

DOTs to identify strategies for ensuring 

the availability of any proposed funding 

sources is retained. Please see the 

responses to the comments on 

Appendix B for additional background 

information and explanation as to why 

we have included this language in 

§ 450.216. 

After further review, the FHWA and 

the FTA determined that paragraph (n) 

is redundant. The same information is 

included in paragraph (b). Therefore, 

paragraph (n) was removed. 

One State DOT and one local agency 

said that the regulation should include 

language emphasizing and expanding 

bicycle and pedestrian program 

guidance. The FHWA and the FTA find 

that the language in the guidance 

documents issued by the FHWA and the 

FTA on February 6, 2006,9 is sufficient 

to address bicycle and pedestrian needs 

without being raised to the level of 

regulatory language. 

Many State DOTs and national and 

regional advocacy organizations that 

provided comments on this section said 

in regards to paragraph (o) (now 

paragraph (n)), that all changes that 

affect fiscal constraint should not 

require an amendment. We have slightly 

modified the paragraph to remove ‘‘all’’

from the last sentence, but note that this 

change does not remove the requirement 

that any change that affects fiscal 

constraint requires an amendment. By 

definition, an amendment is ‘‘a revision 

that requires public review and 

comment, redemonstration of fiscal 

constraint, or a conformity 

determination (for ‘non-exempt’ projects 

in nonattainment and maintenance 

areas). (See § 450.104 (Definitions)). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7235 

The FHWA and the FTA note that 

nearly all comments on § 450.324 

(Development and content of the 

transportation improvement program 

(TIP)) regarding the question posed in 

the preamble of the NPRM ‘‘whether the 

FHWA and the FTA should require 

MPOs submitting TIP amendments to 

demonstrate that funds are ‘available or 

committed’ for projects identified in the 

TIP in the year the TIP amendment is 

submitted and the following year’’

opposed a change. Almost all 

commenters mentioned that such a 

change would require reviewing the 

financial assumptions for the entire 

program, thereby causing an undue 

burden. Commenters suggested showing 

financial constraint only for the 

incremental change. The same question 

was posed in this section of the NPRM. 

Although commenters did not respond 

to the question in comments on this 

section, based on the comments on 

§ 450.324 no change was made to the 

rule. However, the FHWA and the FTA 

are concerned for the potential impact 

of individual amendments on the 

funding commitments and schedules for 

the other projects in the STIP. For this 

reason, the financial constraint 

determination occasioned by the STIP 

amendment will necessitate review of 

all projects and revenue sources in the 

STIP. The FHWA and the FTA will 

address any concerns on this issue 

through subsequent guidance. 

Many State DOTs, MPOs and COGs as 

well as some national and regional 

advocacy organizations and a few public 

transportation providers and local 

government agencies asked for 

clarification on fiscal constraint if the 

financial situation in the State or 

metropolitan region changes. The 

FHWA and the FTA have added a new 

paragraph (o) to clarify that where a 

revenue source is removed or 

substantially reduced after the FHWA 

and the FTA find a STIP to be fiscally 

constrained, the FHWA and the FTA 

will not withdraw its determination of 

fiscal constraint but that the FHWA and 

the FTA will not act on an updated or 

amended STIP which does not reflect 

the changed revenue situation. 

Section 450.218 Self-Certification, 

Federal Findings, and Federal 

Approvals 

The docket included about 20 

documents that contained 

approximately 30 comments on this 

section with about one-half from State 

DOTs, one-quarter from national and 

regional advocacy organizations, and 

the rest from MPOs and COGs, and city/ 

county governments. 

Several comments were made under 

this section that should have referenced 

450.220(e) and the question posed in the 

preamble to the NPRM ‘‘whether States 

should be required to prepare an ‘agreed 

to’ list of projects at the beginning of 

each of the four years in the STIP, rather 

than only the first year and whether a 

STIP amendment should be required to 

move projects between years in the STIP 

if an ‘agreed to’ list is required for each 

year.’’ These comments have been 

reflected in the discussion of and final 

language for § 450.220(e). 

Many commenters, including almost 

all State DOTs, in regards to paragraph 

(a), asserted their belief that the October 

1993 planning rule requires joint FHWA 

and FTA approval of STIP amendments 

only ‘‘as necessary’’ so that, in most 

cases, either the FHWA or the FTA 

could approve the amendment. This is 

not the case. The October 1993 planning 

rule at 23 CFR 450.220(a) did require 

joint approval for all new STIPs and 

STIP amendments ‘‘as necessary.’’ The 

FHWA and the FTA have reviewed this 

requirement and determined that joint 

approval remains necessary. However, 

we note that through the internal 

Planning Collaboration Initiative, the 

FHWA and the FTA have developed a 

number of streamlined internal 

processes and agreements to expedite 

review and approval of STIP 

amendments. Based on these 

agreements and experience with the 

current regulation, we do not believe 

requiring joint approval will slow down 

the approval process or impose new 

workloads on the FHWA and the FTA. 

Joint approval of STIP amendments is 

necessary as part of our stewardship and 

oversight responsibility. 

We have clarified paragraph (a) to 

specifically state that ‘‘STIP 

amendments shall also be submitted to 

the FHWA and the FTA for joint 

approval’’ and that ‘‘at the time the 

entire STIP or STIP amendment is 

submitted,’’ the State shall certify the 

planning process is being carried out in 

accordance with requirements. 

After further review of this section, 

the FHWA and the FTA have updated 

the list of applicable requirements in 

paragraph (a). Reference to ‘‘23 CFR 

parts 200 and 300 have been removed’’

from paragraph (a)(2). Instead, a more 

specific reference to ‘‘23 CFR part 230, 

regarding implementation of an equal 

employment opportunity program on 

Federal and Federal-aid highway 

construction contracts’’ was added as 

paragraph (a)(5). This is the specific 

portion of 23 CFR parts 200 and 300 that 

needs to be reviewed and is not related 

to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 in paragraph (a)(2). In addition, we 

have added a new paragraph (a)(3) ‘‘49 

U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination 

on the basis of race, color, creed, 

national origin, sex, or age in 

employment or business opportunity.’’

Upon further review of this section, the 

FHWA and the FTA determined that 49 

U.S.C. 5332 should be included in this 

list of requirements. 

Several comments to the docket 

expressed concern regarding the need 

for approval of the STIP when 

submitted to the FHWA and the FTA. 

While we still require joint approval, we 

have revised paragraph (b) to delete the 

proposed time frames of ‘‘every four 

years’’ or ‘‘at the time the amended STIP 

is submitted.’’ We will also make a joint 

finding on the ‘‘STIP,’’ rather than ‘‘the 

projects in the STIP.’’

Some commenters raised questions 

regarding the authority in paragraph (c) 

for the FHWA and the FTA approval of 

a STIP to continue for up to 180 days 

under extenuating circumstances even 

though a State has missed the deadline 

for its four-year update. Several 

comments suggested that the 180 

calendar day limit for STIP extensions 

should be expanded and most 

supported not putting any time limit on 

the STIP extension period. At the same 

time, some national and regional 

advocacy organizations opposed 

allowing any STIP extensions. This 

provision has been in the planning 

regulations since the original rule 

relating to STIPs was adopted in 

October 1993, following the enactment 

of the ISTEA. Although the statute 

specifies that STIPs shall be updated 

every four years, Congress did not 

specify any consequences of missing 

this deadline by failing to complete the 

update within the specified period. 

Because Congress was silent on the 

consequences of the failure to update 

the STIP within the four-year period, 

the FHWA and the FTA have some 

latitude in interpreting Congress’ intent. 

This discretion is further manifested in 

the statute by the fact that the FHWA 

and the FTA are given responsibility to 

approve the STIP (23 U.S.C. 135(g)(6) 

and 49 U.S.C. 5304(g)(6)). Since the 

October 1993 planning rule, the FHWA 

and the FTA have interpreted the 

update requirement strictly, believing 

that Congress intended the process to 

work on a regular cycle, and that regular 

updates were essential to the viability of 

the transportation planning process. 

Therefore, we have concluded that 

approval of the STIP should only 

continue past the update time period 

specified in statute when there are 

extenuating circumstances beyond the 

control of the State DOT that causes it 

to miss its update deadline. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7236 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

10This guidance document, ‘‘SAFETEA–LU 

Deadline for New Planning Requirements’’, dated 

May 2, 2006, is available on the following URL: 

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

11This guidance document, ‘‘Clarification of Plan 

Requirements in Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas,’’ dated May 25, 2001, can be found via the 

internet at the following URL: http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/ 

planup_m.htm. 

Examples of extenuating 

circumstances include (but are not 

limited to): (a) late action by the 

Governor or State legislature on revenue 

that was reasonably expected to be 

available for transportation projects in 

the STIP, whereby instances have 

occurred when the STIP was nearing the 

completion of the update process 

(public review and comments had been 

received), but just before adoption the 

funding was severely restricted, thus a 

new update process (based on new 

fiscal constraint reality) needed to be 

commenced; or (b) disasters, both 

natural and man-made, have caused 

States to divert both funding and staff 

resources away from the STIP update 

process. 

Further, the FHWA and the FTA 

believe that such an approval cannot 

extend indefinitely, but only be of 

limited duration (i.e., 180 calendar 

days). Therefore, we have retained the 

provision in paragraph (c) for an 

extension of the STIP update under 

extenuating circumstances. However, 

paragraph (c) has been slightly modified 

to clarify that, while the FHWA and the 

FTA approval may continue for a 

limited period of time based on 

extenuating circumstances, the statutory 

deadline for the update has not been 

changed. We have also clarified that the 

180-day period refers to ‘‘calendar 

days.’’

Many comments were received 

questioning why the existing flexibility 

to maintain or establish operations for 

highway operating assistance was 

eliminated here and in § 450.328 (TIP 

actions by the FHWA and the FTA). 

This was an erroneous omission in the 

NPRM and the language has been 

restored to correct this error. 

A small number of national and 

regional advocacy organizations 

expressed concern that the rule does not 

provide enough detail on the standards 

that the FHWA, the FTA and State 

DOTs should apply in making a 

statewide planning finding. We believe 

that the entire context of the rule and of 

the statute sufficiently identify the 

criteria to be used in making a finding 

that the transportation planning process 

meets or substantially meets these 

requirements. We do not believe 

additional detail is required in the rule. 

However, if necessary, the FHWA and 

the FTA will provide non-regulatory 

guidance, training and technical 

assistance. 

Section 450.220 Project Selection 

From the STIP 

The docket included 20 documents 

that contained about 20 comments on 

this section. The majority of the 

comments were from State DOTs. MPOs 

and COGs, as well as transit agencies, 

city/county governments, and national 

and regional advocacy groups, also 

provided comments. 

All of the comments pertained to the 

two questions posed in the preamble to 

the NPRM: ‘‘whether States should be 

required to prepare an ‘agreed to’ list of 

projects at the beginning of each of the 

four years in the STIP, rather than only 

the first year’’ and ‘‘whether a STIP 

amendment should be required to move 

projects between years in the STIP, if an 

‘agreed to’ list is required for each year.’’

Predominantly, comments asserted that 

requiring a State DOT or MPO to submit 

an agreed-to list at the beginning of each 

of the four years of the TIP/STIP or 

requiring an amendment to move 

projects between years in the STIP 

unnecessarily limited flexibility and 

thus should not be a requirement. The 

FHWA and the FTA agree with the 

majority of the comments. Therefore, no 

change was made to the rule language. 

We have clarified paragraph (b) to 

indicate that project selection shall be 

made according to procedures provided 

in § 450.330 (Project Selection From the 

TIP). 

Section 450.222 Applicability of NEPA 

to Statewide Transportation Plans and 

Programs 

The docket includes very few 

comments on this section. One concern 

expressed is that this section or 

Appendix A would make planning 

reviewable under NEPA. The purpose of 

this section, however, is to reiterate the 

statutory provisions that clearly say that 

the statewide transportation planning 

process decisions are not subject to 

review under NEPA. We have changed 

this section to mirror the language in 23 

U.S.C. 135(j) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(j). 

Section 450.224 Phase-In of New 

Requirements 

The docket included 30 documents 

that contained almost 100 comments on 

this section with about half from State 

DOTs, one-fifth from national and 

regional advocacy organizations, onefifth from MPOs and COGs, and the rest 

from city/county/State agencies. 

All comments received indicated that 

it will be difficult to meet the 

SAFETEA–LU July 1, 2007, deadline. 

Subsequent to the preparation of the 

proposed rule, but prior to its 

publication, the FHWA and the FTA 

disseminated additional guidance 

regarding the phase-in requirements on 

May 2, 2006.10 Many of the comments 

to the docket addressed issues that were 

clarified in our May 2, 2006, guidance. 

The provisions of the guidance have 

been incorporated into the regulation. 

Specifically, we have clarified that longrange statewide transportation plans 

and STIPs adopted and approved prior 

to July 1, 2007, may be developed using 

the TEA–21 requirements or the 

provisions and requirements of this 

part. 

We have also clarified, in paragraph 

(a), what actions may be taken prior to 

July 1, 2007, on long-range statewide 

transportation plans and STIPs. 

One MPO, half of the national and 

regional advocacy organizations and a 

quarter of the State DOTs commented 

that the regulations should clearly state 

that partial STIP approvals are 

allowable if one MPO or region is not 

SAFETEA–LU compliant. Because the 

regulation already allows for approval of 

partial STIPs (see § 450.218(b)(1)(iii)), 

no change was made to the regulation. 

Approval of partial STIPs is acceptable, 

primarily when difficulties are 

encountered in cooperatively 

developing the STIP portion for a 

particular metropolitan area or for a 

Federal Lands agency. If an MPO is able 

to produce a TIP that is SAFETEA–LU 

compliant, the Federal action would be 

to amend that TIP into the STIP, making 

the portion of the STIP that covers that 

region SAFETEA–LU compliant. 

Most of the national and regional 

advocacy organizations and most of the 

State DOTs commented that the 

deadline for transportation plan, STIP 

and TIP action should apply to State/ 

MPO approval action rather than the 

FHWA/FTA conformity finding. The 

FHWA and the FTA issued guidance on 

‘‘Clarification of Plan Requirements in 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas’’

on May 25, 2001.11 Since the FHWA 

and the FTA do not determine 

conformity of STIPs, we are revising this 

section to eliminate conformity 

determinations. However, the rest of the 

rule language is consistent with current 

practice, and therefore, no other change 

was made. 

Most of the commenters stated that 23 

U.S.C. 135(b) requires only ‘‘updates’’ to 

reflect changes required by SAFETEA–

LU after July 1, 2007, not 

‘‘amendments.’’ The comments noted 

that requiring a STIP re-adoption for 

minor amendments would be a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7237 

12These documents, ‘‘Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals With Disabilities, Job Access and 

Reverse Commute, and New Freedom Programs: 

Coordinated Planning Guidance for FY 2007 and 

Proposed Circulars’’ was published September 6, 

2006, and are available via the internet at the 

following URLs: http://www.fta.dot.gov/ 

publications/publications_5607.html or http://a257.

g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/ 

edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6–14733.pdf. 

substantial burden and is a stricter 

interpretation of the statute than 

Congress intended. Prior to the adoption 

of this rule, there has not been an 

accepted definition of or distinction 

between the terms ‘‘update’’ or 

‘‘amendment.’’ As established in 

Section 450.104 (Definitions) of this 

rule, the FHWA and the FTA consider 

an amendment to the STIP to be a major 

change to the transportation plan or 

program. The FHWA and the FTA 

believe that any major change to the 

transportation plan or program, whether 

called an ‘‘amendment’’ or an ‘‘update’’

under this regulation, is considered for 

this purpose an ‘‘update’’ as referenced 

in 23 U.S.C. 135(b). However, an 

‘‘administrative modification’’ would 

not be covered by this requirement. This 

rule clarifies the definition of these 

terms for the future. 

One national and regional advocacy 

organization stated that Congress 

specified that the SAFETEA–LU phasein period should begin on July 1, 2007, 

not be completed by that date. The 

FHWA and the FTA believe that this is 

an incorrect interpretation of the statute. 

The FHWA and the FTA agree that 

administrative modifications can be 

made to STIPs after July 1, 2007, but 

amendments or revisions that would 

add or delete a major new project to a 

TIP, STIP, or transportation plan would 

not be acceptable after July 1, 2007, in 

the absence of meeting the provisions 

and requirements of this part. This 

information has been included in 

paragraph (c). 

Subpart C—Metropolitan 

Transportation Planning and 

Programming 

Section 450.300 Purpose 

No comments were received on this 

section and no changes were made. 

Section 450.302 Applicability 

No comments were received on this 

section and no changes were made. 

Section 450.304 Definitions 

No comments were received on this 

section and no changes were made. 

Section 450.306 Scope of the 

Metropolitan Transportation Planning 

Process 

The docket included about 80 

separate comments on this section with 

almost half from MPOs and COGs. 

Several national and regional advocacy 

organizations also commented on this 

section. Most of the remaining 

comments came from State DOTs and 

transit agencies. City/county 

governments and others also 

commented on this section. 

In comments on this section and 

§ 450.206 (Scope of the statewide 

transportation planning process), many 

MPOs and COGs, some national and 

regional advocacy organizations and a 

few State DOTs noted that paragraph 

(a)(3) embellished the statutory language 

for the ‘‘security’’ planning factor. 

Organizations that commented on this 

issue were concerned that the expanded 

language would require State DOTs and 

MPOs to go far beyond their traditional 

responsibilities in planning and 

developing transportation projects, 

which was not intended by the 

SAFETEA–LU. The FHWA and the FTA 

agree and have revised the language in 

paragraph (a)(3) to match the language 

in the statute. 

After further review, the FHWA and 

the FTA have changed the word 

‘‘should’’ to ‘‘shall’’ in paragraph (b) to 

be consistent with statutory language in 

23 U.S.C. 134(h)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 

5303(h)(1). 

Most of the State DOTs and several of 

the national and regional advocacy 

organizations that commented on 

similar text in § 450.206 (Scope of the 

statewide transportation planning 

process) said that the text in paragraph 

(b) of that section should be revised to 

be similar to the text in the October 

1993 planning rule acknowledging that 

the degree of consideration will reflect 

the scales and complexity of issues 

within the State. The FHWA and the 

FTA agree with those comments and 

revised this section, as well, to be 

consistent. We have included the 

language from the October 1993 

planning rule with one change. The 

phrase ‘‘transportation problems’’ was 

changed to ‘‘transportation system 

development.’’

After further review, we have clarified 

paragraph (c) to mirror the language in 

23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 

5303(h)(2). The paragraph now 

specifically refers to ‘‘any court under 

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

subchapter II of title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, 

or title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 7.’’

Some MPOs and COGs and a few 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations asked for clarification on 

the meaning of asset management 

principles and information on how to 

link them to performance measures. The 

FHWA and the FTA have changed ‘‘are 

encouraged to’’ to ‘‘may’’ in paragraph 

(e) to provide additional flexibility for 

MPOs, State DOTs, and public 

transportation operators to apply asset 

management principles appropriate to 

their individual context. If necessary, 

the FHWA and the FTA will provide 

additional non-regulatory guidance, 

training and technical assistance. 

Many of the State DOTs and a few of 

the national and regional advocacy 

organizations that provided comments 

on this topic said the text in paragraph 

(f) went beyond statutory requirements. 

The FHWA and the FTA agree with 

these comments and revised the rule 

accordingly by adding ‘‘to the maximum 

extent practicable’’ in paragraph (f). 

Most transit agencies, several State 

DOTs, MPOs and COGs, and others 

provided comments on the requirement 

in paragraph (g) for the metropolitan 

transportation planning process to be 

consistent with the development of 

coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plans. In general, 

commenters requested additional 

information on the plans, who was 

responsible for developing the plans 

and how they were to be consistent. 

Some commenters recommended 

removing the requirement entirely. 

Communities have broad flexibility in 

determining the roles and 

responsibilities in this area, including 

selecting the organization charged with 

developing the coordinated public 

transit-human services transportation 

plan. The FHWA and the FTA 

encourage review of the proposed FTA 

Circulars for implementing the 49 

U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs 

(New Freedom Program Guidance, The 

Job Access And Reverse Commute 

(JARC) Program, Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals With Disabilities Program), 

published on September 6, 2006.12

Consistency between public transithuman services planning and the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process is required. The provisions for 

promoting consistency between the 

planning processes were revised to 

clarify and add flexibility. In order to 

receive funding in title 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 53, projects from the 

coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plans must be 

incorporated into the metropolitan 

transportation plan, TIP and STIP. And, 

in areas with a population greater than 

200,000, solicitation of projects for 

implementation from the public transithuman services transportation plan 

must be done in cooperation with the 

MPO. 

Several transit agencies and a few 

State DOTs and others suggested 

deleting the portion of paragraph (h) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7238 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

related to Regional Transit Security 

Strategies (RTSS) due to the confidential 

nature of these plans. Reference to the 

RTSS was removed from paragraph (h). 

Instead, we have added a reference to 

‘‘other transit safety and security 

planning and review processes, plans, 

and programs, as appropriate.’’

Section 450.308 Funding for 

Transportation Planning and Unified 

Planning Work Programs 

There were a few comments on this 

section from MPOs and COGs. Those 

that commented on this section 

supported the flexibility provided in 

paragraph (d) and several requested 

clarification on issues such as the 

definition of ‘‘MPO staff,’’ and different 

processes expected of non-TMA and 

TMA MPOs. If necessary, the FHWA 

and the FTA will provide additional 

clarification through development of 

technical reports or guidance; however 

we did not make any changes to this 

section. 

Section 450.310 Metropolitan 

Planning Organization Designation and 

Redesignation 

The docket included about 30 

separate comments on this section with 

the most coming from national and 

regional advocacy organizations. Most 

of the remaining comments came from 

State DOTs, MPOs and COGs. Local 

agencies also commented on this 

section. 

Several of the MPOs and COGs and 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations that provided comments 

on this section worried that the Census’

continuous sample American 

Community Survey (ACS) would change 

the official populations in urbanized 

areas more often than once a decade, 

and recommended that paragraph (a) 

should specifically state that urbanized 

area populations be based only on each 

decennial Census. The Census Bureau 

historically has identified and defined 

the boundaries and official population 

of urbanized areas only in conjunction 

with each decennial Census. This 

practice will not change as a result of 

the ACS. The ACS is collected in a 

nationwide sample of households, and 

does not constitute a full enumeration of 

the U. S. population. Consequently, it 

does not provide the necessary basis for 

adjusting the boundaries of an 

urbanized area or revising its total 

population. Moreover, changing this 

paragraph would preclude the option 

for a fast growing urban area to request 

(and pay for conducting) a special middecade Census for the purpose of 

determining whether its population 

increased beyond the threshold for 

designation as an MPO or TMA. While 

this has been done infrequently in the 

past, the FHWA and the FTA do not 

want to prohibit this option. Therefore, 

no change was made to this paragraph. 

A few national and regional advocacy 

organizations and State DOTs had 

comments on paragraph (c), ranging 

from deleting language that they said 

went beyond statute to clarifying the 

phrase ‘‘to the extent possible’’ to 

including the public in designation. The 

language in this paragraph was carried 

forward from the October 1993 planning 

rule. However, the FHWA and the FTA 

agree that the implied regulatory 

standing was unclear. This paragraph 

has been changed to mirror the language 

in 23 U.S.C. 134(f)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 

5303(f)(2). The intent of this paragraph 

is to encourage States to enact 

legislation that gives MPOs specific 

authority to carry out transportation 

planning for the entire metropolitan 

planning area they serve. Without such 

enabling legislation, MPOs may lack the 

necessary leverage to effectively 

coordinate transportation projects across 

local jurisdictions. 

A national and regional advocacy 

organization suggested language be 

added to paragraph (d) to encourage 

broad representation, especially from 

public transportation operators, on MPO 

policy boards. The statute (23 U.S.C. 

134(d)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 

5303(d)(2)(B)) explicitly provides for 

public transportation agencies to be 

included on policy boards. To clarify 

this issue, paragraph (d) has been 

changed to better reflect the language in 

the statute. Further, we have added 

language to the rule to encourage MPOs 

to increase the representation of local 

elected officials and public 

transportation agencies on their policy 

boards, subject to the requirements of 

paragraph (k) of this section. 

After further review, we have changed 

the language in paragraph (e) from 

‘‘should’’ to ‘‘shall’’ to be consistent 

with statute (23 U.S.C. 134(d)(1) and 49 

U.S.C. 5303(d)(1)). 

A question was asked about the 

purpose of paragraph (f). This is not a 

new paragraph. In fact, it first appears 

in Federal statute (23 U.S.C. 134(d)(3) 

and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(3)) as a means of 

‘‘grandfathering’’ in those multimodal 

transportation agencies that were in 

existence at the time of enactment of 

ISTEA, which were serving many of the 

functions of an MPO. This paragraph 

continues to appear in the SAFETEA–

LU (23 U.S.C. 134(d)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 

5303(d)(3), but was not explicitly 

included in past versions of the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

regulations. The FHWA and the FTA 

agree that it is no longer necessary and 

have removed it from the rule. Most 

agencies covered by the provisions of 23 

U.S.C. 134(d)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 

5303(d)(3) have already been officially 

designated as an MPO, and this option 

still will have the force of law in the 

statute. 

Some commenters suggested that 

paragraph (g) (now paragraph (f)) should 

allow MPOs to use non-profit 

organizations for staff work. This 

paragraph brings forward the language 

from the October 1993 planning rule. 

Nothing in this paragraph prohibits an 

MPO from using the staff resources of 

other agencies, non-profit organizations, 

or contractors to carry out selected 

elements of the metropolitan planning 

process. However, to clarify this issue, 

we have added ‘‘non-profit 

organizations, or contractors’’ to this 

paragraph. 

A few MPOs recommended deleting 

‘‘current MPO board members’’ as one 

definition for units of general purpose 

local government from paragraph (k) 

(now paragraph (j)). The FHWA and the 

FTA agree that allowing the option of 

‘‘local elected officials currently serving 

on the MPO’’ to represent all units of 

general purpose local government for 

the purposes of redesignation could 

result in unintended problems. The 

FHWA and the FTA have deleted ‘‘local 

elected officials currently serving on the 

MPO’’ from this paragraph and moved 

the remaining text into the body of 

paragraph (j). 

Many of the State DOTs and a few of 

the national and regional advocacy 

organizations and MPOs and COGs that 

commented on this section had specific 

comments on paragraph (l) (now 

paragraph (k)) saying that the paragraph 

goes beyond statutory requirements and 

should be deleted and requesting 

clarification and minor word changes. 

The intent of this paragraph is that 

while an MPO may identify the need for 

redesignation, actual redesignation must 

be carried out in accordance with 

statutory redesignation procedures. The 

FHWA and the FTA have added 

language to this paragraph to clarify that 

redesignation is in accordance with the 

provisions of this section (§ 450.310). 

We have also modified paragraph (m) 

(now paragraph (l)) to reference the 

substantial change discussion in 

paragraph (k). 

The docket contained a comment in 

regards to paragraph (l) (now paragraph 

(k)) that § 4404 of the SAFETEA–LU 

provides specific designation and 

redesignation authority for the States of 

Alaska and Hawaii. Because § 4404 of 

the SAFETEA–LU does not apply 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7239 

universally to all MPOs, it is not 

included in the rule. 

Section 450.312 Metropolitan 

Planning Area Boundaries 

The docket included a few comments 

on this section with the most coming 

from MPOs and COGs and the 

remaining comments from State DOTs 

and national and regional advocacy 

organizations. Several of the comments 

provided general support for this 

section of the planning rule as written. 

A few of the comments related to 

paragraph (b) and asked for minor text 

changes or clarification on how the 

section may limit flexibility. The FHWA 

and the FTA revised the paragraph to 

make it more consistent with statutory 

text and, thus, it should not limit 

flexibility beyond statutory 

requirements. We also added a reference 

to the requirements in § 450.310(b) to 

reiterate that the MPA boundary may be 

established to coincide only if there is 

agreement of the Governor and the 

affected MPO in the same manner as is 

required for designating an MPO in the 

first place. 

One of the comments regarding 

paragraph (d) asked for clarification for 

requiring that the metropolitan planning 

area (MPA) boundary coincide with 

regional economic development or 

growth forecasting areas, in particular, 

for complex areas having multiple, noncoincident boundaries. This paragraph 

says that metropolitan planning 

boundaries ‘‘may’’ be established to 

coincide with regional economic and 

growth forecasting areas. This paragraph 

is permissive, not mandatory. Instead, 

this paragraph provides MPOs with the 

flexibility to allow their planning 

boundaries to coincide with other, 

established boundaries, but does not 

require them to do so. For clarification 

and simplicity, the word ‘‘the’’ was 

deleted from the beginning of this 

paragraph. 

In response to comments on this 

section, we have also clarified 

paragraph (h) to indicate that all 

boundary adjustments that change the 

composition of the MPO may require 

redesignation of one or more such 

MPOs, rather than only boundary 

changes that ‘‘significantly’’ change the 

composition of the MPO. 

Section 450.314 Metropolitan 

Planning Agreements 

The docket included more than 70 

comments on this section, with the most 

coming from State DOTs, followed by 

MPOs and COGs. The remaining 

comments were from national and 

regional advocacy organizations, local 

agencies and public transportation 

providers. 

Most of the State DOTs and MPOs, 

many of the national and regional 

advocacy organizations, and a few of the 

public transportation providers and 

local agencies that commented on 

paragraph (a) expressed concern about 

an unintended burden resulting from 

the requirements outlined in this 

paragraph and requested clarification. 

Some suggested text changes such as 

using the term ‘‘memorandum of 

understanding’’ in place of 

‘‘agreement.’’ The MPO agreements are 

intended to document the cooperative 

arrangements among the various agency 

participants that participate in the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process. The FHWA and the FTA 

encourage a single agreement. However, 

the rule language has been changed to 

reflect the option for multiple 

agreements. Removing the implied 

requirement for a single written 

agreement should allow many current 

planning agreements to satisfy the 

provisions of this paragraph provided 

they are written documents. 

Many of the State DOTs that 

commented on this section said they 

find paragraph (a)(1) too prescriptive 

and redundant with requirements in 

other sections of the planning rule. On 

the other hand, several MPOs and COGs 

and national and regional advocacy 

organizations that provided comments 

on this section wrote to support the 

proposed rule language in this 

paragraph. The FHWA and the FTA 

believe the information in this 

paragraph is helpful to identify what 

shall be included in the written 

agreement(s). No change was made to 

this language, but it has been moved 

into the body of paragraph (a). 

Many of the State DOTs that 

commented on this section said they 

found paragraph (a)(2) too prescriptive 

and redundant with requirements in 

other sections of the planning rule. 

Several MPOs and COGs and national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

said they would like clarification or 

minor text changes in this paragraph. A 

small number of MPOs and COGs and 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations that provided comments 

on this section wrote to support the 

proposed rule language in this 

paragraph. The FHWA and the FTA 

removed this paragraph from the final 

rule since the issues are adequately 

addressed in § 450.316 (Interested 

parties, participation, and consultation). 

The docket includes a comment on 

this section objecting to the requirement 

in paragraph (f) that a planning 

agreement between two or more MPOs 

serving part of a TMA shall address 

specific TMA requirements, such as the 

suballocation of Surface Transportation 

Program (STP) funds. The FHWA and 

the FTA revised the final rule to clarify 

that the entire adjacent urbanized area 

does not need to be treated as a TMA. 

However, a written agreement shall be 

established between the MPOs with 

MPA boundaries including a portion of 

the TMA, which clearly identifies the 

roles and responsibilities of each MPO 

in meeting specific TMA requirements 

(e.g. congestion management process, 

STP funds suballocated to the urbanized 

area over 200,000 population, and 

project selection). 

Representatives of State DOTs and 

private bus operators requested the 

inclusion of detailed methodologies for 

engaging private service providers in the 

transportation planning process, as well 

as standards for ascertaining compliance 

with private enterprise provisions and a 

complaint process. To ensure maximum 

flexibility for localities to tailor 

programs to the needs of private service 

providers in their areas, the FHWA and 

the FTA will use non-regulatory 

guidance, training, and technical 

assistance, as necessary, for 

disseminating information on optional 

approaches to private sector 

participation. 

Section 450.316 Interested Parties, 

Participation, and Consultation 

The FHWA and the FTA received 

more than 80 comments on this section 

with the most coming from MPOs and 

COGs, followed by national and regional 

advocacy organizations. Public 

transportation providers, State DOTs 

and local agencies also provided 

comments on this section. In general, 

many of the MPOs and some of the 

others who provided comments on this 

section said that they supported the rule 

as written or with minor changes. 

A few MPOs in regards to paragraph 

(a) asked about the difference between 

the participation plan identified in this 

rule and the public involvement plan 

under the prior two authorizations, the 

ISTEA and the TEA–21. The 

participation plan in this section has 

several elements not required of the 

public involvement plan: the 

participation plan shall be developed in 

consultation with all interested parties; 

and the participation plan shall include 

procedures for employing visualization 

techniques and making public 

information available in electronically 

accessible formats and means. 

There were a variety of comments 

regarding the list of interested parties in 

paragraph (a) from several MPOs and 

COGs, national and regional advocacy 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7240 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

organizations and public transportation 

providers. The comments ranged from 

specifically including additional groups 

by reference to adding ‘‘non-citizens’’ or 

‘‘the public’’ and ‘‘limited English 

proficiency’’ to adding definitions for 

the groups that are in the list to making 

the list optional. The FHWA and the 

FTA find that, with a general reference 

to ‘‘other interested parties,’’ MPOs have 

adequate flexibility to develop and 

implement a participation plan that 

provides an appropriate list of 

interested parties for their individual 

metropolitan area. MPOs are encouraged 

to broaden the list of interested parties 

beyond those listed in statute, as 

appropriate. The list in the rule has 

been modified to match the language in 

the statute (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5) and 49 

U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)). No additional groups 

were added. The FHWA and the FTA 

note that 49 U.S.C. 5307(c) requires 

grant recipients to make available to the 

public information on the proposed 

program of projects and associated 

funding. 

Representatives of a State DOT and 

private bus operators requested the 

inclusion of detailed methodologies for 

engaging private service providers in the 

transportation planning process, as well 

as standards for ascertaining compliance 

with private enterprise provisions and a 

complaint process. These commenters 

also requested that the private bus 

operators be specifically included in the 

list of interested parties. To ensure 

maximum flexibility for localities to 

tailor programs to the needs of private 

service providers in their areas, we will 

rely upon non-regulatory guidance, 

training, and technical assistance for 

disseminating information on optional 

approaches to private sector 

participation. 

A Federal agency commented that the 

public or an agency should be able to 

identify itself to the MPO as an 

appropriate contact without having to 

be identified to participate by the MPO. 

The FHWA and the FTA agree. If an 

MPO is approached, the MPO should 

consider the request and determine 

whether the consultation is appropriate. 

We believe that this flexibility is 

allowed within the existing rule 

language. No change has been made to 

this section of the rule. 

A few MPOs and COGs that 

commented on this section asked for a 

definition of ‘‘reasonable access’’ under 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii). This requirement 

carries forward what was in the October 

1993 planning rule. The FHWA and the 

FTA find that MPOs have had adequate 

flexibility to define ‘‘reasonable access’’

when they developed and revised their 

public involvement plan and will 

continue to have that flexibility with the 

requirements for a participation plan. 

This definition was not added to the 

rule. 

Many MPOs and COGs and some of 

the other organizations that commented 

on this section wrote to support the 

requirement for employing visualization 

in paragraph (a)(1)(iii). Several MPOs 

and COGs asked for clarification or 

subsequent guidance on effective and 

appropriate use of visualization 

techniques. The FHWA and the FTA 

agree that there is a need for more 

technical information on the use of 

visualization techniques and will 

provide technical reports and nonregulatory guidance, as necessary, 

subsequent to the publication of this 

rule. 

A few MPOs and COGs said in 

reference to paragraph (a)(1)(iv) that 

making technical information available 

could be overly burdensome. This 

requirement conforms to the 

requirement in statute (23 U.S.C. 134 

(i)(5) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)). MPOs 

have flexibility to define specific 

techniques for making information 

available when they develop and revise 

their public participation plan. 

Several MPOs and COGs and a public 

transportation provider wrote in 

reference to paragraph (a)(1)(vi) that the 

term ‘‘explicit consideration’’ could be 

burdensome and needs clarification. 

This language was similar to a 

requirement under the public 

involvement plan and based on that 

experience, the FHWA and the FTA 

believe that MPOs have adequate 

flexibility to define specific techniques 

when they develop and revise their 

public participation plan. If needed, the 

FHWA and the FTA will provide 

subsequent information on accepted 

practices in technical reports or 

guidance. 

Several MPOs and COGs wrote in 

regards to paragraph (a)(1)(viii) that the 

section could result in unintended 

burdens on MPOs. In reviewing the 

statutory requirement (23 U.S.C. 134 

(j)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(4)) and the 

October 1993 planning rules, the FHWA 

and the FTA agree that the current 

wording, which was intended to 

simplify requirements, could lead to 

unintended burdens. The language in 

this paragraph has been revised to 

follow more closely the language in the 

October 1993 planning rule and now 

reads: ‘‘Providing an additional 

opportunity for public comment, if the 

final transportation plan or TIP differs 

significantly from the version that 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.’’

A few of the MPOs and COGs and a 

few of the national and regional 

advocacy organizations were concerned 

in paragraph (b) about their ability to 

consult with resource agencies. Upon 

further review of this paragraph, the 

FHWA and the FTA have revised 

paragraph (b). The originally proposed 

paragraph (b) ‘‘mixed and matched’’

consultation requirements from the 

SAFETEA–LU. We have removed the 

consultation discussion related to land 

management, resource, and 

environmental agencies from this 

paragraph. That information is included 

in § 450.322 (Development and content 

of the metropolitan transportation plan). 

The sentences that read ‘‘To coordinate 

the planning functions to the maximum 

extent practicable, such consultation 

shall compare metropolitan 

transportation plans and TIPs, as they 

are developed, with the plans, maps, 

inventories, and planning documents 

developed by other agencies. This 

consultation shall include, as 

appropriate, contacts with State, local, 

Indian Tribal, and private agencies 

responsible for planned growth, 

economic development, environmental 

protection, airport operations, freight 

movements, land use management, 

natural resources, conservation, and 

historic preservation.’’ were deleted. 

Instead, the phrase ‘‘(including State 

and local planned growth, economic 

development, environmental protection, 

airport operations, or freight 

movements) or coordinate its planning 

process (to the maximum extent 

practicable) with such planning 

activities’’ was added. This phrase is 

consistent with the requirements in the 

SAFETEA–LU that apply to 

consultation in metropolitan 

transportation plan and TIP 

coordination (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4)(A) and 

49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4)(A)). Also to be 

consistent with statute, the term ‘‘shall’’

was changed to ‘‘should.’’

A few of the MPOs and COGs, a few 

of the national and regional advocacy 

organizations, a State DOT and a local 

agency that provided comments on this 

section said regarding paragraph (b), 

that natural resource agencies are not 

required to respond when consulted and 

that this places an unreasonable burden 

on MPOs. However, several MPOs wrote 

in support of this specific paragraph. 

The language regarding consultation has 

been modified to reflect the statutory 

requirement (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4) and 49 

U.S.C. 5303(i)(4)). The FHWA and the 

FTA believe that clarification of what 

constitutes a reasonable attempt at 

consultation is better placed in guidance 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7241 

and illustrations of practice where there 

is greater flexibility to address regional 

differences and the evolution of 

practice. 

Also regarding paragraph (b), a local 

agency said that MPOs should not be 

required to consult with private 

agencies responsible for planned 

growth. The FHWA and the FTA believe 

there may be a need to consult with 

such organizations given the increase in 

public-private partnerships. However, 

the specific phrase ‘‘private agencies 

responsible for growth’’ is not in the 

statute or the October 1993 planning 

regulations and has the potential to 

cause confusion in the implementation 

of this rule. Accordingly, the FHWA and 

the FTA removed the phrase ‘‘private 

agencies responsible for planned 

growth.’’

A few MPOs and COGs that 

commented on this section said in 

regards to paragraph (b) that MPO 

requirements to consult should be 

limited to the metropolitan 

transportation plan, and not the TIP. No 

change was made to the rule because the 

requirement reflects language in the 

statute (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 

5303(i)(4)). 

A small number of national and 

regional advocacy organizations 

expressed concern that the rule does not 

explicitly require that all information 

used in making a conformity 

determination be made available for 

public comment. The transportation 

conformity rule (40 CFR 93.105(e)) 

requires that agencies establish a 

proactive public involvement process 

and that requirements of § 450.316(a) be 

followed and met before conformity 

may be determined. The FHWA and the 

FTA find that the public involvement 

requirements of this section and the 

conformity rule are sufficient to provide 

the public with appropriate access to 

the information developed during a 

conformity determination. 

Representatives of a State DOT and 

private bus operators requested the 

inclusion of detailed methodologies for 

engaging private service providers in the 

transportation planning process, as well 

as standards for ascertaining compliance 

with private enterprise provisions and a 

complaint process. To ensure maximum 

flexibility for localities to tailor 

programs to the needs of private service 

providers in their areas, we will rely 

upon non-regulatory guidance, training, 

and technical assistance for 

disseminating information on optional 

approaches to private sector 

participation. 

Some MPOs and COGs and a few 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations wrote that the 

consultation process with other 

governments and agencies referenced in 

paragraph (e) does not need to be 

documented. The FHWA and the FTA 

find that documentation of consultation 

processes is essential to a party’s ability 

to understand when, how, and where 

the party can be involved. This 

paragraph has been changed to require 

that MPOs, to the extent practicable, 

develop a documented process(es) that 

outlines roles, responsibilities, and key 

decision points for consulting with 

other governments and agencies. 

Section 450.318 Transportation 

Planning Studies and Project 

Development 

Section 1308 of the TEA–21 required 

the Secretary to eliminate the MIS set 

forth in § 450.318 of title 23, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as a separate 

requirement, and promulgate 

regulations to integrate such 

requirement, as appropriate, as part of 

the analysis required to be undertaken 

pursuant to the planning provisions of 

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

Chapter 53 and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) for Federal-Aid highway and 

transit projects. The purpose of this 

section is to implement this requirement 

of Section 1308 of the TEA–21 and 

eliminate the MIS requirement as a 

stand-alone requirement. A phrase has 

been added to paragraph (a) to clarify 

the intent of this section. 

The docket included almost 20 

documents that contained more than 50 

comments on this section with about 

two-thirds from State DOTs and the rest 

from MPOs or COGs, as well as national 

and regional advocacy organizations. 

The comments on this section were 

similar to, and often referenced, the 

comments on § 450.212 (Transportation 

planning studies and project 

development). 

Most of the comments received 

supported the concept of linking 

planning and NEPA but opposed 

including Appendix A in the rule. The 

purpose of an Appendix to a regulation 

is to improve the quality or use of a rule, 

without imposing new requirements or 

restrictions. Appendices provide 

supplemental, background or 

explanatory information that illustrates 

or amplifies a rule. Because Appendix A 

provides amplifying information about 

how State DOTs, MPOs and public 

transportation operators can choose to 

conduct transportation planning-level 

choices and analyses so they may be 

adopted or incorporated into the process 

required by NEPA, but does not impose 

new requirements, the FHWA and the 

FTA find that Appendix A is useful 

information to be included in support of 

this and other sections of the rule. A 

phrase has been added and this 

information has been included as 

paragraph (e). Additionally, we have 

added disclaimer language at the 

introduction of Appendix A. 

The FHWA and the FTA recognize 

commenters’ concerns about Appendix 

A, including the recommendation that 

this information be kept as guidance 

rather than be made a part of the rule. 

First, information in an Appendix to a 

regulation does not carry regulatory 

authority in itself, but rather serves as 

guidance to further explain the 

regulation. Secondly, as stated above, 

Section 1308 of TEA–21 required the 

Secretary to eliminate the MIS as a 

separate requirement, and promulgate 

regulations to integrate such 

requirement, as appropriate, as part of 

the transportation planning process. 

Appendix A fulfills that Congressional 

direction by providing explanatory 

information regarding how the MIS 

requirement can be integrated into the 

transportation planning process. 

Inclusion of this explanatory 

information as an Appendix to the 

regulation will make the information 

more readily available to users of the 

regulation, and will provide notice to all 

interested persons of the agencies’

official guidance on MIS integration 

with the planning process. Attachment 

of Appendix A to this rule will provide 

convenient reference for State DOTs, 

MPOs and public transportation 

operator(s) who choose to incorporate 

planning results and decisions in the 

NEPA process. It will also make the 

information readily available to the 

public. Additionally, the FHWA and the 

FTA will work with Federal 

environmental, regulatory, and resource 

agencies to incorporate the principles of 

Appendix A in their day-to-day NEPA 

policies and procedures related to their 

involvement in highway and transit 

projects. For the reasons stated above, 

after careful consideration of all 

comments, the FHWA and the FTA have 

decided to attach Appendix A to the 

final rule as proposed in the NPRM. 

Most State DOTs and several MPOs 

and COGs, and national and regional 

advocacy organizations that commented 

on this section were concerned that the 

language in paragraph (a) is too 

restrictive. The FHWA and the FTA 

agree that planning studies need not 

‘‘meet the requirements of NEPA’’ to be 

incorporated into NEPA documents. 

Instead, we have changed the language 

in paragraph (a) to ‘‘consistent with’’

NEPA. In addition, we have added the 

phrase ‘‘multimodal, systems-level’’

before ‘‘corridor or subarea’’ to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7242 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

emphasize the ‘‘planning’’ venue for 

environmental consideration. 

Commenters on this section also 

requested that the rule clarify that the 

MPO has the responsibility for 

conducting corridor or subarea studies 

in the metropolitan transportation 

planning process. The FHWA and the 

FTA recognize that the MPO is 

responsible for the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. 

However, we do not want to preclude 

State DOTs or public transportation 

operators, in consultation or jointly with 

the MPO, from conducting corridor or 

subarea studies. Therefore, we have 

changed paragraph (a) to add the 

sentence ‘‘To the extent practicable, 

development of these transportation 

planning studies shall involve 

consultation with, or joint efforts 

among, the MPO(s), State(s), and/or 

public transportation operator(s).’’

It is important to note that this section 

does not require NEPA-level evaluation 

in the transportation planning process. 

Planning studies need to be of sufficient 

disclosure and embrace the principles of 

NEPA so as to provide a strong 

foundation for the inclusion of planning 

decisions in the NEPA process. The 

FHWA and the FTA also reiterate the 

voluntary nature of this section and the 

amplifying information in Appendix A. 

States, public transportation operators 

and/or MPOs may choose to undertake 

studies which may be used in the NEPA 

process, but are not required to do so. 

Several State DOTs and national and 

regional advocacy organizations were 

concerned about the identification and 

discussion of environmental mitigation. 

They did not believe that detail on 

environmental mitigation activities was 

appropriate in the transportation 

planning process. The FHWA and the 

FTA agree. Paragraph (a)(5) calls for 

‘‘preliminary identification of 

environmental impacts and 

environmental mitigation.’’ The FHWA 

and the FTA believe that the term 

‘‘preliminary’’ adequately indicates that 

State DOTs are not expected to provide 

the same level of detail on impacts and 

mitigation as would be expected during 

the NEPA process. Furthermore, 

SAFETEA–LU requires a discussion of 

types of potential environmental 

mitigation activities and potential areas 

to carry out these activities. § 450.322 

(Development and content of the 

metropolitan transportation plan) 

specifically provides that ‘‘The 

discussion may focus on policies, 

programs, or strategies, rather than at 

the project level.’’

Some State DOTs suggested 

incorporating planning decisions rather 

than documents into the NEPA process. 

The FHWA and the FTA find that 

decisions made as part of the planning 

studies may be used as part of the 

overall project development process and 

have changed paragraph (a) to include 

the word ‘‘decisions’’ as well as 

‘‘results.’’ It is important to note, 

however, that a decision made during 

the transportation planning process 

should be presented in a documented 

study or other source materials to be 

included in the project development 

process. Documented studies or other 

source materials may be incorporated 

directly or by reference into NEPA 

documents, as noted in § 450.318(b). We 

have added ‘‘or other source material’’

to paragraph (b) to recognize source 

materials other than planning studies 

may be used as part of the overall 

project development process. 

Based on comments on Appendix A, 

we added the phrase ‘‘directly or’’ in 

paragraph (b), to indicate the use of 

publicly available planning documents 

from subsequent NEPA documents. 

Also based on comments on 

Appendix A, we added the phrase 

‘‘systems-level’’ in paragraph (b)(2), to 

emphasize that these corridor or subarea 

studies are conducted during the 

planning process at a broader scale than 

project specific studies under NEPA. 

Several State DOTs and many others 

who submitted comments on this 

section noted that the word ‘‘continual’’

in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) provides more 

opportunity to comment than is 

necessary. We agree and have replaced 

‘‘continual’’ with ‘‘reasonable’’ in this 

paragraph. 

Several State DOTs and a national and 

regional advocacy organization 

suggested adding a ‘‘savings clause’’ in 

a new paragraph. A savings clause 

would ensure that the new provisions 

regarding corridor or subarea studies do 

not have unintended consequences. The 

specific elements requested to be 

included in the ‘‘savings clause’’ were 

statements that: (a) The corridor and 

subarea studies are voluntary; (b) 

corridor and subarea studies can be 

incorporated into the NEPA process 

even if they are not specifically 

mentioned in the metropolitan 

transportation plan; (c) corridor and 

subarea studies are not the sole means 

for linking planning and NEPA; and (d) 

reiterate the statutory prohibition on 

applying NEPA requirements to the 

transportation planning process. The 

concepts recommended in the ‘‘savings 

clause’’ all reiterate provisions found 

elsewhere in the rule or statute. The 

FHWA and the FTA do not agree that 

it is necessary to repeat those provisions 

in this section. 

The docket included a comment that 

corridor or subarea studies should be 

required, not voluntary, to be included 

in NEPA studies. Given the opposition 

to requiring NEPA-level analysis in the 

transportation planning process, the 

FHWA and the FTA find that the 

permissive nature of this section and the 

guidance provided in Appendix A strike 

the appropriate balance. 

The docket also included a question 

asking what needs to be included in an 

agreement with the NEPA lead agencies 

to accomplish the integration of the 

planning and NEPA processes. The 

FHWA and the FTA have determined 

that identification of what information 

appropriately belongs in the agreement 

should be disseminated as nonregulatory guidance, complemented by a 

wide array of effective practice case 

studies and supported by training and 

technical assistance. Consequently, no 

change was made to the rule. We have 

not required that corridor or subarea 

studies be included or incorporated into 

NEPA studies. 

A national and regional advocacy 

organization raised a number of issues 

and asked a number of questions 

regarding this section. Many of these 

concerns were also expressed by some 

transit agencies and a small number of 

MPOs and COGs. Most of these 

questions related to more detailed 

information on this section with regard 

to the Alternative Analysis requirements 

for major transit projects. The general 

concern related to the integration of the 

planning provisions in Sections 3005, 

3006 and 6001 of the SAFETEA–LU and 

the environmental provisions in Section 

6002 of the SAFETEA–LU, coupled with 

the historical Alternative Analysis 

process conducted as part of the 

eligibility requirements for transit 

proposals. These environment and 

planning provisions of the SAFETEA–

LU are designed to add efficiencies to 

the project development process by 

facilitating a smooth transition from 

planning into the NEPA/project 

development process. To address these 

concerns and the specific questions 

related to the Alternatives Analysis 

process, the FHWA and the FTA have 

added paragraph (d) to the rule. 

A specific concern was that this 

section eliminated the option of 

conducting a NEPA study as part of the 

Alternative Analysis/corridor study 

process. The FHWA and the FTA 

believe this is a misinterpretation of this 

section. We have been and continue to 

be staunch advocates of addressing 

NEPA issues and initiating the formal 

project level environmental analyses as 

early as practicable in the overall project 

development framework, including the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7243 

13Speaking before the National Retail 

Federation’s annual conference on May 16, 2006, in 

Washington, DC, former U.S. Transportation 

Secretary Norman Mineta unveiled a new plan to 

reduce congestion plaguing America’s roads, rails 

and airports. The National Strategy to Reduce 

Congestion on America’s Transportation Network 

includes a number of initiatives designed to reduce 

transportation congestion. The transcript of these 

remarks is available at the following URL: http:// 

www.dot.gov/affairs/minetasp051606.htm. 

transportation planning process. This 

section continues to allow NEPA studies 

to be initiated, even during the 

Alternative Analysis/corridor study 

process. 

Another concern was that this section 

permits the elimination of alternatives 

but does not provide for the selection of 

a preferred alternative. Additionally, a 

subsequent comment indicated that this 

section does not require the 

consideration of all reasonable 

alternatives. As is permitted by the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations, a project sponsor can select 

a preferred alternative at any time in the 

project development process but the 

overall environmental analysis cannot 

be slanted to support the preferred 

alternative nor does the identification of 

a preferred alternative eliminate the 

requirement to study all reasonable 

alternatives as part of the environmental 

analysis. The FHWA and the FTA 

believe that the rule allows for State 

DOTs, MPOs and public transportation 

operators who choose to use planning 

studies as part of the overall project 

development process to eliminate 

alternatives as well as select preferred 

alternatives, as appropriate. Therefore, 

no change was made to the rule. 

These comments also pointed out that 

the FTA requires alternatives analysis 

for New Starts project, but no 

comparable requirement is specified for 

highway projects. Unlike FTA’s formula 

funded programs, New Starts has a 

competition based eligibility 

requirement and, as such, the FTA 

requires a level of evaluation and 

analysis to screen the potential myriad 

requests they receive for limited funds. 

Traditionally, applicants select 

proposed highway projects as part of 

FHWA’s formula funded programs. 

When Congress authorizes a 

competition-based highway program 

similar to New Starts, the FHWA has 

established criteria to evaluate and 

select projects that are eligible for those 

funds. 

It was also noted that § 450.322 

(Development and content of the 

metropolitan transportation plan) 

requires (in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas) design concept and 

scope be identified for projects. This 

comment raises several issues relative to 

actual application of the transportation 

planning process more than the 

regulation itself. For transportation 

demand modeling purposes and to meet 

the requirements of this part, the MPO 

and/or State DOT uses basic tools (e.g. 

engineering, capacity, past history, etc.) 

to identify the design concept and scope 

of a project, without conducting a 

formal corridor study. These early 

decisions are generally made on a broad 

corridor basis and will be refined as the 

project advances towards 

implementation. The commenter 

appears to favor this section of the rule 

being mandatory rather than permissive 

in an attempt to further the state of the 

practice of planning. Encouragement 

and incentives for good transportation 

planning were proffered by the 

commenter as tools to be used to 

increase the desirability of conducting 

corridor studies. The FHWA and the 

FTA believe Appendix A provides this 

encouragement and incentives for good 

transportation planning in identifying 

ways to utilize planning corridor studies 

and thereby reduce the amount of 

repetitive work in the NEPA process. 

We appreciate the support for the 

concepts in this section, but, based on 

all the comments received, find that it 

is most appropriate for this section to 

remain voluntary and permissive. 

Section 450.320 Congestion 

Management Process in Transportation 

Management Areas 

The docket included more than 25 

documents that contained almost 30 

comments on this section with about 

one-third from State DOTs, one-fifth 

from national and regional advocacy 

organizations, half from MPOs and 

COGs, and the rest from transit 

operators. 

On May 16, 2006, the U.S. Secretary 

of Transportation announced a national 

initiative to address congestion related 

to highway, freight and aviation.13 The 

intent of the ‘‘National Strategy to 

Reduce Congestion on America’s 

Transportation Network’’ is to provide a 

blueprint for Federal, State and local 

officials to tackle congestion. USDOT 

encourages the States and MPO(s) to 

seek Urban Partnership Agreements 

with a handful of communities willing 

to demonstrate new congestion relief 

strategies and encourages states to pass 

legislation giving the private sector a 

broader opportunity to invest in 

transportation. It calls for more 

widespread deployment of new 

operational technologies and practices 

that end traffic tie-ups, designates new 

interstate ‘‘corridors of the future,’’

targets port and border congestion, and 

expands aviation capacity. 

U.S. DOT encourages State DOTs and 

MPOs to consider and implement 

strategies, specifically related to 

highway and transit operations and 

expansion, freight, transportation 

pricing, other vehicle-based charges 

techniques, congestion pricing, 

electronic toll collection, quick crash 

removal, etc. The mechanism that the 

State DOTs and MPOs employ to 

explore these strategies is within their 

discretion. The USDOT will focus its 

resources, funding, staff and technology 

to cut traffic jams and relieve freight 

bottlenecks. 

A few commenters reiterated that the 

congestion management process (CMP) 

should result in multimodal system 

performance measures and strategies. 

The FHWA and the FTA note that 

existing language reflects the 

multimodal nature of the CMP. Existing 

language (§ 450.320(a)(2)) specifically 

allows for the appropriate performance 

measures for the CMP to be determined 

cooperatively by the State(s), affected 

MPO(s), and local officials in 

consultation with the operators of major 

modes of transportation in the coverage 

area. 

Most of the comments pointed out 

that the provisions of § 450.320(e) 

pertaining to projects that add 

significant new carrying capacity for 

Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs) 

applies in ‘‘Carbon Monoxide (CO) and 

Ozone Nonattainment TMAs,’’ but does 

not apply to TMAs in air quality 

maintenance areas. The FHWA and the 

FTA agree and have clarified the 

language in paragraph (e). We also 

clarified that this provision applies to 

projects ‘‘to be advanced with Federal 

funds.’’

Several commenters asked for a 

clarification regarding what CMP 

requirements apply in air quality 

maintenance and attainment areas, as 

opposed to the requirements in air 

quality nonattainment areas. The CMP 

requirements for all TMA areas 

(attainment, maintenance and 

nonattainment) are identified in 

§ 450.320(a), § 450.320(b), § 450.320(c), 

and § 450.320(f). Additional CMP 

requirements that apply only to nonattainment TMA areas (for ozone and 

carbon monoxide) are identified in 

§ 450.320(d) and § 450.320(e). 

Another commenter asked for 

clarification regarding the exact 

requirements for a CMP and how the 

CMP is integrated with the metropolitan 

transportation plan. As noted above, the 

specific CMP requirements for all 

TMAs, regardless of air quality status, 

are identified in this section. The CMP 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7244 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

14This joint guidance entitled, ‘‘Interim Guidance 

for Implementing the Transportation Conformity 

Provisions in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users,’’ dated February 14, 2006, is available via the 

Internet at the following URL: http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/ 

sec6011guidmemo.htm. 

in this section is not described as, nor 

intended to be, a stand-alone process, 

but an integral element of the 

transportation planning process. To 

reinforce the integration of the CMP and 

the metropolitan transportation plan, 

§ 450.322(f)(4) requires that the 

metropolitan transportation plan shall 

include ‘‘consideration of the results of 

the congestion management process in 

TMAs that meet the requirements of this 

subpart, including the identification of 

SOV projects that result from a 

congestion management process in 

TMAs that are nonattainment for carbon 

monoxide or ozone.’’

One commenter asked for examples of 

the reasonable travel demand reduction 

and operational management strategies 

as required in § 450.320(e). Examples of 

such strategies include, but are not 

limited to: Transportation demand 

management measures such as car and 

vanpooling, flexible work hours 

compressed work weeks and 

telecommuting; Roadway system 

operational improvements, such as 

improved traffic signal coordination, 

pavement markings and intersection 

improvements, and incident 

management programs; Public transit 

system capital and operational 

improvements; Access management 

program; New or improved sidewalks 

and designated bicycle lanes; and Land 

use policies/regulations to encourage 

more efficient patterns of commercial or 

residential development in defined 

growth areas. 

Section 450.322 Development and 

Content of the Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan 

There were over 160 separate 

comments on this section, mostly from 

MPOs and COGs, followed by national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

and State DOTs. A number of comments 

also came from public transportation 

providers with the remainder coming 

from local government agencies, the 

general public or other sources. 

Several MPOs and COGs and national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

that commented on this section asked 

for clarification regarding the 20-year 

planning horizon in paragraph (a). The 

FHWA and the FTA want to provide 

MPOs flexibility on how to treat the 

metropolitan transportation plan at the 

time of a revision. The actual effective 

date of a metropolitan transportation 

plan update may be dependent upon 

several factors, including the intent of 

the MPO, the magnitude of the 

metropolitan transportation plan 

revision and whether conformity needs 

to be determined. To specifically 

indicate in the final rule when a 

‘‘revision’’ may be considered a full 

‘‘update’’ could result in limiting 

flexibility. For more information on this 

topic, refer to the ‘‘Definitions’’ section 

of this rule. 

A small number of MPOs and COGs 

and national and regional advocacy 

organizations that commented on this 

section asked for clarification in 

paragraph (b) between long-range and 

short-range strategies. The FHWA and 

the FTA carried forward the language 

regarding short and long-range strategies 

from the October 1993 planning rule. 

Generally, long-range are those 

strategies and actions expected to be 

implemented beyond 10 years. 

A small number of national and 

regional advocacy organizations also 

commented that the transportation 

demand referenced in paragraph (b) 

should be balanced with the 

environment and other factors. The 

FHWA and the FTA find that the 

balance with environmental concerns is 

adequately raised in other parts of the 

rule both in this section and in 

§ 450.306 (Scope of the metropolitan 

transportation planning process). 

A small number of MPOs that 

commented on this section wrote in 

support of paragraph (c) relating to the 

cycles for reviews and updates. The 

FHWA and the FTA note that this 

paragraph revises and supercedes the 

April 12, 2005, guidance on ‘‘Plan 

Horizons’’ allowing MPOs to ‘‘revise the 

metropolitan transportation plan at any 

time using the procedures in this 

section without a requirement to extend 

the horizon year.’’

A small number of State DOTs and 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations that commented on this 

section said in regard to paragraph (d) 

that the proposed language limits 

consultation between State air quality 

agencies and MPOs in ozone and carbon 

monoxide (CO) nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Transportation 

control measures (TCMs) can apply to 

all pollutants so this section should 

refer to all types of nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. 

Paragraph (d) addresses the MPO’s 

coordination in the development of the 

TCMs in a SIP in ozone and CO 

nonattainment areas, pursuant to 49 

U.S.C 5303(i)(3). The FHWA and the 

FTA are clarifying in the final rule the 

role of the MPO in the development of 

SIP TCMs, to be more consistent with 

the statute. Similar coordination is 

encouraged in the development of SIP 

TCMs in ozone and CO maintenance 

areas, as well as particulate matter and 

nitrogen dioxide nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. The FHWA and the 

FTA had proposed additional language 

in paragraph (d) that specified that the 

MPO, State air quality agency and the 

EPA must concur on the equivalency of 

any substitute TCM before an existing 

SIP TCM is replaced under section 

176(c)(8) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

7506(c)(8)). After consultation with the 

EPA, this language was deemed 

unnecessary for the final planning 

regulations. The EPA has determined 

that revising the transportation 

conformity regulations is not necessary 

to implement the TCM substitution 

provision in Section 6011(d) of the 

SAFETEA–LU. The EPA believes that 

the new Clean Air Act provision 

contains sufficient detail to allow the 

provision to be implemented without 

further regulation. The EPA, the FHWA, 

and the FTA issued joint guidance on 

February 14, 2006, that describes how 

TCM substitutions can occur under the 

statute.14

A small number of State DOTs and a 

few MPOs and COGs that commented 

on this section said in regards to 

paragraph (e) that the requirement for 

‘‘agreement’’ is too stringent. The 

FHWA and the FTA find that a 

‘‘cooperative’’ planning process requires 

agreement among the major planning 

partners on what assumptions to adopt 

and what data and analyses to employ 

to forecast future travel demand. If a 

State or transit operator conducts a 

major planning study within the MPO 

planning boundaries, it is critical that 

the assumptions and data used in that 

planning study be considered valid by 

other planning partners and be 

consistent with data the MPO will 

employ to develop its travel models or 

otherwise develop growth projections in 

population, employment, land use, and 

other key factors that affect future travel 

demand. Both consultation and 

agreement on those assumptions/data 

are crucial to this process. However, the 

FHWA and the FTA also understand 

that the proposed text may be 

considered overly restrictive. We 

eliminated the phrase ‘‘the 

transportation plan update process shall 

include a mechanism for ensuring that 

* * * agree * * *’’ and replaced it with 

‘‘the MPO, the State(s), and the public 

transportation operator(s) shall validate 

***’’ The FHWA and the FTA believe 

that the requirement ‘‘validate data’’

provides more flexibility than 

‘‘including a mechanism.’’


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7245 

A number of MPOs and COGs that 

commented on this section asked for 

clarification in paragraph (f)(3) of the 

operational and management strategies. 

A small number of State DOTs support 

the proposed rule. Effective regional 

transportation systems management and 

operations requires deliberate and 

sustained collaboration and 

coordination between planners and 

managers of day-to-day operations 

across jurisdictions and between 

transportation and public safety 

agencies in order to improve the 

security, safety, and reliability of the 

transportation system. Coordination 

between transportation planning and 

operations helps ensure that regional 

transportation investment decisions 

reflect full consideration of all available 

strategies and approaches to meet 

regional transportation goals and 

objectives. Strengthening the 

coordination between these two 

processes and activities—planning and 

operations—can enhance both activities. 

Because transportation systems 

management and operations is emerging 

as an important aspect of regional 

transportation planning, it is strongly 

encouraged that a set (or sets) of 

objectives be set forth in the 

metropolitan transportation plan for 

operational and management strategies 

that will lead to regional approaches, 

collaborative relationships, and funding 

arrangements for projects. Examples of 

operational and management strategies 

may include traffic signal coordination, 

traveler information services, traffic 

incident management, emergency 

response and homeland security, work 

zone management, freeway/arterial 

management, electronic payment 

services, road weather management, and 

congestion management. More specific 

examples on strategies related to 

congested locations can be found on the 

following Web site: http:// 

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestionmitigation/ 

congestionmitigation.htm, and 

additional information on freight 

bottlenecks is available at the following 

Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

policy/otps/bottlenecks/index.htm. The 

FHWA and the FTA intend to prepare 

guidance on operational and 

management strategies in the long-range 

statewide transportation plan and 

metropolitan transportation plan, 

including the development and use of 

objectives. The FHWA and the FTA 

have provided, and will continue to 

provide, technical information and 

guidance regarding operational and 

management strategies, if needed. 

However, we did not make any changes 

to this paragraph. 

To encourage MPOs to address 

congestion in the metropolitan 

transportation plan, the following 

sentence was added to paragraph (f)(5): 

‘‘The metropolitan transportation plan 

may consider projects and strategies that 

address areas or corridors where current 

or projected congestion threatens the 

efficient functioning of key elements of 

the metropolitan area’s transportation 

system.’’

Some MPOs and COGs and a small 

number of State DOTs and the public 

that commented on this section had a 

variety of comments on paragraph (f)(6), 

ranging from requesting that it be 

eliminated to questioning the need for 

including existing facilities to the ability 

to provide sufficient detail to develop 

cost estimates in out years. This text is 

identical to the October 1993 planning 

rule. The FHWA and the FTA have 

found that providing the information 

required by this paragraph in the 

metropolitan transportation plan 

provides valuable information to system 

operators, decision-makers and the 

general public, while not causing undue 

burden on the MPOs. 

There were a large number and 

variety of comments on paragraph (f)(7). 

Some MPOs and COGs questioned the 

value of this paragraph or the ability to 

implement this provision, while a small 

number of national and regional 

advocacy organizations wrote in support 

of the paragraph. Some MPOs and 

COGs, national and regional advocacy 

organizations, and State DOTs, as well 

as a small number of public comments 

had questions or asked for clarification. 

Some MPOs and COGs, along with some 

State DOTs, suggested a text change to 

clarify the intent of the paragraph. 

Finally, a small number of comments 

came from national and regional 

advocacy organizations and Federal 

agencies recommending including an 

evaluation mechanism. 

The FHWA and the FTA concur with 

the recommendation to change the text, 

to more closely mirror the intent of the 

statute (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B) and 49 

U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(B)). We also concur 

that discussions of types of potential 

environment mitigation strategies need 

not be project specific, but should be at 

the policy or strategic level. We have 

made these changes to be consistent 

with the intent of the statute. A similar 

change has been made in § 450.214(j). 

The FHWA and the FTA have provided 

guidance, training, and technical 

assistance in this area and, if necessary, 

will provide additional efforts as needed 

so MPOs understand both how to 

address and the value of discussing 

types of potential mitigation activities as 

part of the metropolitan transportation 

plan. MPOs have the flexibility to 

develop and implement evaluation 

mechanisms that reflect the needs and 

complexity of the metropolitan area. 

While statute (23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3) and 

49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3)) identifies 

evaluation in specific areas such as 

congestion, the FHWA and the FTA do 

not believe there is justification to 

develop a regulatory process that 

requires a systematic evaluation in other 

areas. 

Also in regards to paragraph (f)(7), a 

Federal agency recommended requiring 

the consideration of avoidance measures 

to protect nationally significant 

resources. The FHWA and the FTA 

agree that consultation with appropriate 

Federal land and resource management 

agencies is essential during the 

development of metropolitan 

transportation plans to make the most 

efficient use of resources, since these 

agencies would need to be involved in 

the discussions of mitigation throughout 

the project development process. We 

believe that the regulatory language is 

sufficient to encourage such 

consultation and to foster discussions 

between the MPO and the Federal 

agencies to identify nationally 

significant resources and to consider 

actions and strategies to avoid and 

protect them. Therefore, no additional 

changes have been made to this 

paragraph. 

There were a large number and 

variety of comments on paragraph 

(f)(10). Most of the State DOTs and 

many of the MPOs and COGs and 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations that commented on this 

section were against including 

operations and maintenance in the 

financial plan. Most of the State DOTs, 

many of the national and regional 

advocacy organizations, and some of the 

MPOs and COGs commented that the 

financial plan should not be extended to 

include ‘‘the entire transportation 

system’’ but should be limited to 

projects funded by the FHWA and the 

FTA. On the other hand, a small number 

of national and regional advocacy 

organizations supported requiring all 

projects be included. Finally, most of 

the State DOTs, MPOs and COGs, and 

many of the national and regional 

advocacy organizations suggested 

removing the reference to Appendix B. 

When proposing Appendix B to the 

rule, the FHWA and the FTA intended 

to raise the level of awareness and 

importance in developing fiscally 

constrained transportation plans, TIPs, 

and STIPs to States, MPOs, and public 

transportation operators. Since its 

introduction under the ISTEA, fiscal 

constraint has remained a prominent 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7246 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

15This document, ‘‘Interim FHWA Major Project 

Guidance,’’ dated January 27, 2006, is available via 

the internet at the following URL: http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/mega/ 

012706.cfm. 

aspect of transportation plan and 

program development, carrying through 

to the TEA–21 and now to the 

SAFETEA–LU. The FHWA and the FTA 

acknowledge that Appendix B contains 

a combination of guidance, amplifying 

information and additional criteria. 

Given the level of controversy regarding 

Appendix B, it has been removed from 

the rule. Therefore, the sentence 

referencing Appendix B in paragraph 

(f)(10) has been deleted. 

The FHWA and the FTA have divided 

paragraph (f)(10) into subparagraphs (i) 

through (viii) to make each provision 

easier to identify. 

Many commenters questioned the 

requirement in new paragraph (f)(10)(i) 

that the financial plan must demonstrate 

the ability to adequately operate and 

maintain the entire transportation 

system. The FHWA and the FTA have 

revised § 450.322(f)(10) to delete the 

phrase ‘‘while operating and 

maintaining existing facilities and 

services.’’ Instead, a new sentence was 

added to paragraph (f)(10) (now 

paragraph (f)(10)(i)) that reads: ‘‘For 

purposes of transportation system 

operations and maintenance, the 

financial plan shall contain system-level 

estimates of costs and revenue sources 

that are reasonably expected to be 

available to adequately operate and 

maintain Federal-aid highways (as 

defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and 

public transportation (as defined by title 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53).’’ Please see the 

responses to the comments on 

Appendix B for additional background 

information and explanation. 

A new paragraph (f)(10)(ii) discusses 

cooperative development of estimates of 

funds. No change was made to this 

discussion. 

A new paragraph (f)(10)(iii) discusses 

additional financing strategies in the 

metropolitan transportation plan. No 

change was made to this discussion. 

A new paragraph (f)(10)(iv) discusses 

the projects and strategies to be 

included in the financial plan. The 

FHWA and the FTA find that certain 

features of Appendix B merit inclusion 

in the rule. One of these features is the 

requirement for revenue and cost 

estimates to use an inflation rate(s) to 

reflect year of expenditure dollars (to 

the extent practicable). We have added 

a sentence to paragraph (f)(10)(iv) that 

reads: ‘‘Starting December 11, 2007, 

revenue and cost estimates that support 

the metropolitan transportation plan 

must use an inflation rate(s) to reflect 

‘‘year of expenditure dollars,’’ based on 

reasonable financial principles and 

information, developed cooperatively by 

the MPO, State(s), and public 

transportation operator(s).’’ This 

language expresses the desire of the 

FHWA and the FTA for revenue and 

cost estimates to be reflected in ‘‘year of 

expenditure dollars.’’ We recognize that 

it might take some time for State DOTs 

and MPOs to convert their metropolitan 

transportation plans, STIPs and TIPs to 

reflect this requirement. Therefore, we 

will allow a grace period until 

December 11, 2007, during which time 

State DOTs and MPOs may reflect 

revenue and cost estimates in ‘‘constant 

dollars.’’ After December 11, 2007, 

revenues and cost estimates must use 

‘‘year of expenditure’’ dollars. This 

requirement is consistent with the 

January 27, 2006, document ‘‘Interim 

FHWA Major Project Guidance.’’ 15

Please see the responses to the 

comments on Appendix B for additional 

background information and 

explanation. 

A new paragraph (f)(10)(v) presents 

additional information from Appendix 

B. The FHWA and the FTA believe that 

this optional provision will give MPOs 

maximum flexibility to broadly define a 

large-scale transportation issue or 

problem to be addressed in the future 

that does not predispose a NEPA 

decision, while, at the same time, 

calling for the definition of a future 

funding source(s) that encompasses the 

planning-level ‘‘cost range/cost band.’’

Please see the responses to the 

comments on Appendix B for additional 

background information and 

explanation. 

A new paragraph (f)(10)(vi) addresses 

nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

A new paragraph (f)(10)(vii) reinforces 

that the financial plan is not required to 

include illustrative projects. 

Many State DOTs, MPOs and COGs as 

well as some national and regional 

advocacy organizations and a few public 

transportation providers and local 

government agencies asked for 

clarification on fiscal constraint if the 

financial situation in the State or 

metropolitan region changes. The 

FHWA and the FTA have added 

paragraph (f)(10)(viii) to clarify 

situations where a revenue source is 

removed or substantially reduced after 

the FHWA and the FTA find a 

metropolitan transportation plan to be 

fiscally constrained. 

All references to Appendix B have 

been removed from this section because 

Appendix B is not a part of this rule. 

Some national and regional advocacy 

organizations and a small number of 

MPOs and COGs and Federal agencies 

provided comments on paragraph (g) 

regarding changing the ‘‘or’’ between 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) to ‘‘and’’. A 

small number of the comments, 

including some by a Federal agency, 

also related to adding specific agencies 

or processes to the text. The FHWA and 

the FTA acknowledge that the text is 

different from similar text for statewide 

planning in § 450.214(i). However, both 

sections are consistent with statute. (See 

(23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 

5303(i)(4)(B)) and (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(D) 

and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2)(D)). The FHWA 

and the FTA also note that there is 

flexibility in the rule language. The ‘‘or’’

does not prevent an MPO from carrying 

out (g)(1) and (g)(2). At the same time, 

the term ‘‘as appropriate’’ allows an 

MPO to carry out only (g)(1) or (g)(2) in 

certain circumstances. No changes were 

made to this paragraph to remain 

consistent with statutory language. 

Most of the MPOs and COGs provided 

comments on paragraph (h) ranging 

from removing any reference to security 

to clarifying the MPO role in security to 

text changes. A few State DOTs and 

public transportation providers 

provided a range of comments as well. 

The FHWA and the FTA acknowledge 

the potential for concern and confusion 

in an emerging area such as 

transportation security. We have added 

the phrase ‘‘(as appropriate)’’ to this 

paragraph to provide additional 

flexibility in this emerging area and to 

respect the sensitive nature of homeland 

security issues. We also want to reiterate 

that placing the inclusion of policies 

that support homeland and personal 

security in the same sentence with 

safety should in no way detract from the 

recognition that safety and security are 

separate considerations in the planning 

process. If necessary, the FHWA and the 

FTA will provide subsequent guidance 

and technical resources on 

incorporating policies supporting 

homeland and personal security. 

Several commenters noted that the 

reference in paragraph (k) was incorrect. 

This reference has been changed to 

accurately refer to paragraph (f)(10). 

The FHWA and the FTA note, based 

on coordination with the EPA, that the 

interim metropolitan transportation 

plan and TIP referenced in paragraph (1) 

and in § 450.324(m) respectively allows 

the use of interim metropolitan 

transportation plans and TIPs during a 

conformity lapse so that exempt 

projects, transportation control 

measures in approved State 

implementation plans, and previously 

approved projects and/or project phases 

can be funded when a conformity 

determination lapses. In addition, we 

have clarified that the ‘‘interagency 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7247 

consultation’’ referenced in paragraph 

(1) is ‘‘defined in 40 CFR part 93.’’

After further review, the FHWA and 

the FTA have determined it is necessary 

to clarify paragraph (l) regarding eligible 

projects that may proceed without 

revisiting the requirements of this 

section. We have added ‘‘or consistent 

with’’ to this paragraph to clarify that 

eligible projects (e.g., exempt projects 

under 40 CFR 93.126) do not need to be 

explicitly listed in the conforming 

transportation plan and TIP to proceed. 

Section 450.324 Development and 

Content of the Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP) 

The docket included more than 50 

documents that contained more than 

125 comments on this section with 

about one-quarter from State DOTs, onequarter from national and regional 

advocacy organizations, one-half from 

MPOs and COGs, and the rest from city/ 

county/State agencies and transit 

agencies. A few MPOs and COGs, many 

State DOTs and a few national and 

regional advocacy organizations said in 

regards to paragraph (a) that MPOs 

should be allowed to have a TIP of more 

than four years where the additional 

year(s) are not illustrative. 

The four-year scope is consistent with 

the time period required by the 

SAFETEA–LU. MPOs may show 

projects as illustrative after the first four 

years as well as in the metropolitan 

transportation plan. While MPOs are not 

prohibited from developing TIPs 

covering a longer time period, the 

FHWA and the FTA can only recognize 

and take subsequent action on projects 

included in the first four years of the 

TIP. Therefore, no change was made to 

this paragraph of the rule in response to 

these comments. However, paragraph (a) 

was modified to be consistent with 

clarifications to the definitions of 

‘‘revision’’ and ‘‘amendment.’’

When proposing Appendix B to the 

rule, the FHWA and the FTA intended 

to raise the level of awareness and 

importance in developing fiscally 

constrained transportation plans, TIPs, 

and STIPs to States, MPOs, and public 

transportation operators. Since its 

introduction under the ISTEA, fiscal 

constraint has remained a prominent 

aspect of transportation plan and 

program development, carrying through 

to the TEA–21 and now to the 

SAFETEA–LU. The FHWA and the FTA 

acknowledge that Appendix B contains 

a combination of guidance, amplifying 

information and additional criteria. 

Given the level of controversy regarding 

Appendix B, it has been removed from 

the rule. Therefore, the sentence 

referencing Appendix B in paragraph (i) 

has been deleted. 

We have changed paragraph (c) to 

allow the inclusion of the exempted 

projects, but not requiring that they be 

included. We removed the phrase 

‘‘federally supported’’ from the 

beginning of this paragraph because it is 

redundant. The paragraph already 

requires projects to be included if they 

are funded under title 23 U.S.C., and 

title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Further, we 

have added ‘‘Safety projects funded 

under 23 U.S.C. 402’’ to paragraph 

(c)(1). This change is consistent with the 

October 1993 planning rule. 

Many State DOTs and several national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

commented in regard to paragraph (d) 

(now paragraph (e)), that they should 

not have to demonstrate financial 

constraint for projects included in the 

TIP funded with non-FHWA and nonFTA funds. However, the proposed 

requirement is consistent with and 

carries forward the requirement that was 

implemented with the October 1993 

planning rule. In addition, for 

informational purposes and air quality 

analysis in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, regionally 

significant non-Federal projects shall be 

included in the TIP. Therefore, the 

FHWA and the FTA have retained this 

portion of paragraph (d). We have, 

however, simplified the paragraph 

slightly to combine the last two 

sentences. 

A few comments were received from 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations and MPOs stating that 

paragraph (e)(1) would be enhanced by 

adding language that the information 

included in the TIP for each project 

needs to be understandable by the 

general public. This requirement 

remains unchanged from the October 

1993 planning rule. Since that time, we 

have noted little public confusion over 

the information included in TIPs 

identifying projects or phases. We 

believe the MPO participation plan 

process offers opportunities for the 

public to clarify confusion in specific 

cases. No change was made to the rule. 

Most State DOTs, MPOs and COGs 

and national and regional advocacy 

organizations that commented on this 

section, recommended in regards to 

paragraph (e), that after the first year of 

the TIP, only ‘‘likely’’ or ‘‘possible’’

(rather than ‘‘proposed’’) categories of 

funds should be identified by source 

and year. The FHWA and the FTA agree 

with this suggestion, with the exception 

of projects in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas for which funding in 

the first two years must be available or 

committed. Paragraph (e)(3) has been 

changed to specifically reference the 

amount of ‘‘Federal funds’’ proposed to 

be obligated and to identify separate 

standards for the first year and for the 

subsequent years of the TIP. 

Most of the comments on paragraph 

(h) pertained to the question posed in 

the preamble of the NPRM regarding 

whether the FHWA and the FTA should 

require MPOs submitting TIP 

amendments to demonstrate that funds 

are ‘‘available or committed’’ for 

projects identified in the TIP in the year 

the TIP amendment is submitted and 

the following year. Almost all opposed 

this suggestion believing that it would 

require reviewing the financial 

assumptions for the entire program, 

thereby causing an undue burden. 

Commenters suggested showing 

financial constraint only for the 

incremental change. The FHWA and the 

FTA are concerned for the potential 

impact of individual amendments on 

the funding commitments and 

schedules for the other projects in the 

TIP. For this reason, the financial 

constraint determination occasioned by 

the TIP amendment will necessitate 

review of all projects and revenue 

sources in the TIP. The FHWA and the 

FTA will address any concerns on this 

issue through subsequent guidance. 

Further, the FHWA and the FTA are 

concerned that amendments that do not 

include available and committed funds 

for the year of the amendment and the 

following year will reduce the 

credibility with decision-makers and the 

public that projects will be able to move 

forward in a timely manner. Given the 

comments on this issue, we have not 

made a change to the rule. The FHWA 

and the FTA will address any concerns 

on this issue through subsequent 

guidance. 

As discussed in the response to the 

comments on Appendix B, we have 

added to paragraph (h), ‘‘for purposes of 

transportation operations and 

maintenance, the financial plan shall 

contain system-level estimates of costs 

and revenue sources that are reasonably 

expected to be available to adequately 

operate and maintain Federal-aid 

highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 

101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as 

defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53).’’

In addition, to reinforce that the 

financial plan is not required to include 

illustrative projects, we have added the 

phrase ‘‘but is not required to’’ to this 

discussion. We have added one 

additional feature from Appendix B: 

‘‘year of expenditure dollars.’’ We have 

added the following sentence to 

paragraph (h): Starting December 11, 

2007, revenue and cost estimates for the 

TIP must use an inflation rate(s) to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7248 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

16This document, ‘‘Interim FHWA Major Project 

Guidance,’’ date January 27, 2006, is available via 

the internet at the following URL: http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/mega/ 

012706.cfm. 

reflect ‘‘year of expenditure dollars,’’

based on reasonable financial principles 

and information, developed 

cooperatively by the MPO, State(s), and 

public transportation operator(s). This 

language expresses the desire of the 

FHWA and the FTA for revenue and 

cost estimates to be reflected in ‘‘year of 

expenditure dollars.’’ We recognize that 

it might take some time for State DOTs 

and MPOs to convert their metropolitan 

transportation plans, STIPs and TIPs to 

reflect this requirement. Therefore, we 

will allow a grace period until 

December 11, 2007, during which time 

State DOTs and MPOs may reflect 

revenue and cost estimates in ‘‘constant 

dollars.’’ After December 11, 2007, 

revenues and cost estimates must use 

‘‘year of expenditure’’ dollars. This 

requirement is consistent with the 

January 27, 2006, document ‘‘Interim 

FHWA Major Project Guidance.’’16 The 

reference to Appendix B has been 

deleted since Appendix B is not 

included with this rule. Please see the 

responses to the comments on 

Appendix B for additional background 

information and explanation. 

Many State DOTs, national and 

regional advocacy organizations and a 

few MPOs and COGs questioned having 

to demonstrate their ability to 

adequately operate and maintain the 

entire transportation system. They were 

concerned that State DOTs, MPOs, and 

public transportation operators should 

not be responsible for demonstrating 

available funds for projects outside of 

federally supported facilities. The 

FHWA and the FTA have revised 

paragraph (i) to change the phrase 

‘‘while the entire transportation system 

is being adequately operated and 

maintained’’ to ‘‘while federally 

supported facilities are being adequately 

operated and maintained.’’ We have also 

removed the reference to ‘‘by source’’

and the reference to additional 

information in Appendix B, since 

Appendix B has been removed from this 

rule. Please see the responses to the 

comments on Appendix B to the NPRM 

for additional background information 

and explanation. 

A few comments were received 

opposing the requirement in paragraph 

(j)(1) (now paragraph (l)(1)) for the TIP 

to identify the criteria and process for 

prioritizing implementation of 

transportation plan elements for 

inclusion in the TIP. The FHWA and the 

FTA find that if it is difficult for the 

MPO to identify or capture the criteria 

it used to select projects, it will be even 

more difficult for the general public to 

understand the rationale behind 

selecting one element from the 

transportation plan over another. 

Therefore, we retained the language in 

paragraph (l)(1). However, in reviewing 

this comment, we identified two 

paragraphs from the October 1993 

planning rule (23 CFR 450.324(l) and 

(m)) that were not included in the 

NPRM, related to this issue. To clarify 

and emphasize that MPOs should 

identify criteria and a process for 

prioritizing transportation plan 

elements for inclusion in the TIP, we 

have added these two paragraphs to the 

rule as new paragraphs (j) and (k), 

respectively. These paragraphs identify 

the need for allocation of funds based 

on prioritization and explicitly prohibit 

suballocation based on pre-determined 

percentages of formulas. 

The FHWA and the FTA note, based 

on coordination with the EPA, that the 

interim metropolitan transportation 

plan and TIP referenced in § 450.322(1) 

and in paragraph (k) (now paragraph 

(m)) of this section respectively allows 

the use of interim plans and TIPs during 

a conformity lapse so that exempt 

projects, transportation control 

measures in approved State 

implementation plans, and previously 

approved projects and/or project phases 

can be funded when a conformity 

determination lapses. We have added 

‘‘conformity’’ to the first sentence to 

specify the ‘‘lapse’’ referenced and 

removed the phrase ‘‘(as defined in 40 

CFR part 93)’’ because it is no longer 

necessary. 

After further review, the FHWA and 

the FTA have determined it is necessary 

to clarify paragraph (k) (now paragraph 

(m)) regarding eligible projects that may 

proceed without revisiting the 

requirements of this section. We have 

added the phrase ‘‘or consistent with’’

to this paragraph to clarify that eligible 

projects (e.g., exempt projects under 40 

CFR 93.126) do not need to be explicitly 

listed in the conforming transportation 

plan and TIP to proceed. 

Many State DOTs, MPOs and COGs as 

well as some national and regional 

advocacy organizations and a few public 

transportation providers and local 

government agencies asked for 

clarification on fiscal constraint if the 

financial situation in the State or 

metropolitan region changes. The 

FHWA and the FTA have added a new 

paragraph (o) to clarify situations where 

a revenue source is removed or 

substantially reduced after the FHWA 

and the FTA find a STIP to be fiscally 

constrained. 

Several comments asked for 

clarification between the phrases 

‘‘operation and maintenance’’ and 

‘‘operation and management.’’ See the 

discussion of § 450.104 (Definitions) for 

an explanation of these terms. 

The FHWA and the FTA received a 

proposal identifying additional 

procedures for engaging private 

transportation operators in planning and 

program delivery. We recognize the 

importance of private operator 

participation and, if necessary, will 

provide technical assistance to MPOs to 

promote effective practice, but do not 

believe any changes to the rule are 

necessary. 

Section 450.326 TIP Revisions and 

Relationship to the STIP 

The docket included 21 documents 

that contained more than 25 comments 

on this section with about one-third 

from State DOTs, half from MPOs and 

COGs, and the rest from city/county/ 

State agencies, as well as national and 

regional advocacy organizations. 

One county, many of the MPOs and 

COGs and State DOTs, and most of the 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations submitted opposition to 

the statement in paragraph (a) that 

public participation procedures 

consistent with § 450.316(a) shall be 

utilized in revising the TIP, except that 

these procedures are not required for 

administrative modifications that only 

involve projects of the type covered in 

§ 450.324(f). Because the rule does not 

require an MPO to undertake any 

particular public involvement process 

for an administrative modification, an 

MPO may delineate its own public 

involvement process for administrative 

modifications within the public 

participation plan. In order to clarify 

these issues, the FHWA and the FTA 

have removed the phrase ‘‘projects of 

the type covered in § 450.324(f)’’ from 

paragraph (a). 

Many of the MPOs and COGs and 

most of the State DOTs opposed the 

statement in paragraph (a) that ‘‘in all 

areas, changes that affect fiscal 

constraint must take place by 

amendment of the TIP.’’ The FHWA and 

the FTA realize that there are minor 

funding changes to projects that a region 

could determine would fall under the 

definition of ‘‘administrative 

modifications,’’ and these would not 

need to go through the full TIP 

amendment process. However, the 

FHWA and the FTA include this 

requirement because any change which 

requires an amendment has ripple 

effects throughout the program and thus 

should be subjected to the full 

disclosure of a TIP amendment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7249 

17The FHWA administers a nationwide highway 

project reporting system, the Fiscal Management 

Information System (FMIS), that is used to provide 

oversight of over $30 billion in disbursements to 

States for Federal-aid highway projects. FMIS 

prescribes project reporting policy and procedures 

and maintains the official project obligation records 

and statistical data for the various highway 

programs, including the planning and 

administration of a nationwide highway project 

reporting system on the progressive stages of 

individual highway projects. The system provides 

information to the FHWA and U.S. DOT 

management, State transportation officials, other 

Federal agencies, and the Congress. 

18 In an effort to help manage funds that support 

some of the FTA collaborative activities, the FTA 

has developed the Transportation Electronic Award 

and Management (TEAM) system. TEAM is a 

system designed to manage and track the grant 

process. FTA staff use TEAM to assess grant 

availability, assess and approve projects, assign 

project numbers, allocate and approve funding, and 

view approved grantee projects and associate 

reports. FTA staff members also use TEAM to track 

the processes associated with these activities. In 

addition, grantees and potential grantees use TEAM 

to request grants and track grant progress. 

Therefore, no change has been made to 

the paragraph in response to this 

comment. 

Half of the MPOs and COGs and half 

of the national and regional advocacy 

organizations oppose the language in 

paragraph (a) that states: ‘‘In 

nonattainment or maintenance areas for 

transportation-related pollutants, if the 

TIP is amended by adding or deleting 

non-exempt projects (per 40 CFR part 

93), or is replaced with an updated TIP, 

the MPO, and the FHWA and the FTA 

must make a new conformity 

determination.’’ The sentence has been 

revised to clarify that the transportation 

conformity rule (40 CFR 93.104(c)(2)) 

requires a transportation conformity 

determination be made if a TIP 

amendment involves non-exempt 

projects. If a non-exempt project has 

already been incorporated into a 

regional emissions analysis and is 

merely moving from the currently 

conforming metropolitan transportation 

plan to the TIP (and is not crossing an 

analysis year) we agree that the 

conformity determination on the TIP 

can be based on a previous regional 

emissions analysis if the requirements 

of 40 CFR 93.122(g) are met. No 

additional changes were made to this 

paragraph. 

Section 450.328 TIP Action by the 

FHWA and the FTA 

The docket included approximately 

20 documents that contained more than 

20 comments on this section with about 

three-fifths from State DOTs, one-fourth 

from national and regional advocacy 

organizations, and the rest from city/ 

county/State agencies and MPOs and 

COGs. 

An MPO expressed concern that 

paragraph (a) was too vague and openended. In addition, several commenters 

expressed concern regarding the need 

for approval of the TIP when submitted 

to the FHWA and the FTA. The FHWA 

and the FTA do not approve the TIP. 

The language in this paragraph is 

consistent with the language in the 

October 1993 planning rule. Over nearly 

13 years, we have not found significant 

confusion regarding this language. 

However, we did remove ‘‘including 

amendments thereto’’ from this 

paragraph since we the FHWA and the 

FTA do not make findings on 

amendments. 

After consultation with the EPA, we 

have revised paragraph (c) to be 

consistent with Clean Air Act 

requirements and clarify that projects 

may only be advanced once the plan 

expires if the TIP was approved and 

found to conform prior to the expiration 

of the metropolitan transportation plan 

and if the TIP meets the TIP update 

requirements of § 450.324(a). 

Many comments were received 

questioning why the existing flexibility 

to allow highway operating funds to be 

approved even if not in the TIP was 

eliminated from paragraph (f) and in 

§ 450.218 (Self certification, Federal 

findings and Federal approvals). This 

was an erroneous omission in the NPRM 

and the language has been changed to 

correct this error. 

Section 450.330 Project Selection 

From the TIP 

The docket included 33 documents 

that contained more than 35 comments 

on this section with about one-third 

from State DOTs, one-eighth from 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations, half from MPOs and 

COGs, and the rest from city/county/ 

State agencies and transit operators. 

Most of the comments pertained to 

the two questions posed in the preamble 

to the NPRM: (1) Whether MPOs should 

be required to prepare an ‘‘agreed to’’

list of projects at the beginning of each 

of the four years in the TIP, rather than 

only the first year; and (2) whether a TIP 

amendment should be required to move 

a project between years in the TIP, if an 

‘‘agreed to’’ list is required for each year. 

The predominant opinion was that 

requiring a State DOT or MPO to submit 

an agreed to list at the beginning of each 

of the four years of the TIP/STIP or 

requiring an amendment to move 

projects between years in the TIP/STIP 

unnecessarily limits flexibility, and thus 

should not be a requirement. The 

FHWA and the FTA agree with the 

majority of the comments. Therefore, no 

change was made to the rule language. 

A few MPOs requested guidance on 

why a distinction is made between 

projects that are selected by the State in 

cooperation with the MPO and those 

that are selected by the MPO in 

consultation with the State and public 

transportation operators. This language 

is consistent with the October 1993 

planning rule and is based on language 

in the statute (23 U.S.C. 135(b) and 49 

U.S.C. 5304(b) and 23 U.S.C. 134(c) and 

49 U.S.C. 5303(c), respectively). 

Therefore, no change was made to the 

rule language. 

A few MPOs noted that paragraph (b) 

uses ‘‘consultation’’ to describe the 

MPO/TMA’s action with the State and 

transit agency, whereas, ‘‘cooperation’’

is used to describe the State’s action 

with the MPO. This language is 

consistent with the October 1993 

planning rule and is based on language 

in the statute ((23 U.S.C. 135(b) and 49 

U.S.C. 5304(b) and 23 U.S.C. 134(c) and 

49 U.S.C. 5303(c), respectively). 

Therefore, no change was made to the 

rule language. 

Section 450.332 Annual Listing of 

Obligated Projects 

The docket included more than 20 

documents that contained about 40 

comments on this section with about 

one-eighth from State DOTs, one-fifth 

from national and regional advocacy 

organizations, half from MPOs and 

COGs, and the rest from city/county/ 

State agencies and transit operators. 

Half of the comments on this section 

pertained to the language that requires 

the annual listing needs to be published 

no later than 90 calendar days following 

the end of the State program year. All 

of the responses suggested that using the 

end of the Federal fiscal year would 

make more sense. The FHWA and the 

FTA appreciate the suggestion. We have 

changed the language to not specify 

‘‘State program year’’ or ‘‘Federal fiscal 

year.’’ Instead, the MPO, State, public 

transportation operator(s) shall 

determine the ‘‘program year.’’ The 

annual listing of obligated projects shall 

be developed no later than 90 calendar 

days following the end of the program 

year. 

Critical information needed for this 

report is available in FHWA’s Fiscal 

Management Information System 

(FMIS) 17 and FTA’s Transportation 

Electronic Award and Management 

(TEAM) 18 System databases. Many of 

the MPOs and many of the national and 

regional advocacy organizations 

requested that they be provided access 

to these databases, or provided timely 

reports of the data from the FHWA and 

the FTA. The FHWA and the FTA will 

work closely with the States, public 

transportation operators and the MPOs 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7250 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

19This document, ‘‘Preliminary SAFETEA–LU 

Guidance—Annual List of Obligated Projects, dated 

February 24, 2006, is available via the internet at 

the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/ 

annuallistemail.htm. 

20This guidance, ‘‘SAFETEA–LU Deadline for 

New Planning Requirements (July 1, 2007),’’ dated 

May 2, 2006, is available via the internet at the 

following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/ 

plandeadline.htm. 

to ensure all of the critical data is 

available to successfully meet this 

reporting requirement. However, the 

FHWA and the FTA do not believe that 

the rule needs to be changed to address 

this comment. 

Some MPOs and several State DOTs 

expressed support for including bicycle 

and pedestrian projects in the annual 

listing. However, many commenters did 

not want to include a listing of all 

bicycle and pedestrian ‘‘investments’’ in 

the report because many bicycle and 

pedestrian investments are included 

within larger transit or highway 

projects. No changes were made to the 

rule because the language reflects what 

is included in the statute (23 U.S.C. 

134(j)(7)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(B)) 

The FHWA and the FTA expect the 

projects included in the Annual Listing 

of Obligated Projects to be consistent 

with the projects that are listed in the 

TIP. It was suggested that the annual 

listing of obligated projects contain only 

fund obligations and not provide 

information duplicative of that 

published in the TIP. Because the 

annual listing of obligated projects is 

intended to improve the transparency of 

transportation spending decisions to the 

public, and because providing TIP 

information enhances the userfriendliness of the document, the FHWA 

and FTA have decided not to change the 

content requirements. On February 24, 

2006, the FHWA and the FTA jointly 

issued preliminary guidance on the 

annual list of obligated projects.19

Section 450.334 Self-Certifications and 

Federal Certifications 

The docket included about 10 

documents that contained about 10 

comments on this section with about 

one-half from national and regional 

advocacy organizations, one-half from 

MPOs and COGs, and the rest from city/ 

county governments. 

Several comments pertained to the 

four-year cycle for Federal certification 

reviews of TMAs compared to the 

annual self-certification required by all 

MPOs and State DOTs. There was some 

concern that the annual selfcertifications should not be required if 

the FHWA and the FTA have just 

performed their Federal certification 

review. The regulations require the State 

and all MPOs to certify annually that 

they are carrying out the transportation 

planning process to ensure that the State 

and MPOs understand their 

transportation responsibilities and to 

ensure that their responsibilities are 

actually being met. This selfcertification must affirm that the 

transportation planning process is 

conducted in accordance with all 

applicable requirements. 

The MPO self-certifications and the 

FHWA/FTA Federal certification 

reviews of TMAs are related, yet distinct 

requirements. The Federal certification 

of TMAs is a statutory requirement, 

while MPO self-certifications are a 

regulatory requirement that apply to all 

MPOs and State DOTs. Both the FHWA/ 

FTA (for the Federal certification) and 

the MPO (for the self-certification) must 

meet their individual requirements. 

While both may occur in the same year, 

the FHWA and the FTA note that some 

of the information pulled together by 

the MPO(s), State(s), and public 

transportation operator(s) in advance of 

the TMA certification review could be 

‘‘re-used’’ in making the selfcertification. Therefore, no change has 

been made to the rule. 

One commenter requested that the 

FHWA and the FTA include a specific 

standard for compliance with private 

enterprise provisions, which now are 

excluded from consideration in TMA 

certification, and improve a private 

provider’s ability to operate in 

metropolitan areas. Several commenters 

requested the inclusion of detailed 

methodologies for engaging private 

service providers in the transportation 

planning process, as well as standards 

for ascertaining compliance with private 

enterprise provisions and a complaint 

process. 

To ensure maximum flexibility for 

localities to tailor private sector 

involvement procedures to the service 

providers and needs of their areas, we 

have determined that this information 

should be disseminated as nonregulatory guidance, complemented by a 

wide array of effective practice case 

studies and supported by training and 

technical assistance. 

The FHWA and the FTA have 

updated the list of applicable 

requirements in paragraph (a). Reference 

to ‘‘23 CFR parts 200 and 300’’ has been 

removed from paragraph (a)(3). Instead, 

a more specific reference to ‘‘23 CFR 

part 230, regarding implementation of 

an equal employment opportunity 

program on Federal and Federal-aid 

highway construction contracts’’ was 

added as paragraph (a)(6). This is the 

specific portion of 23 CFR parts 200 and 

300 that needs to be reviewed and is not 

related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 in paragraph (a)(3). In addition, 

we have added a new paragraph (a)(4): 

‘‘49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, creed, national origin, sex, or age 

in employment or business 

opportunity.’’ Upon further review of 

this section, the FHWA and the FTA 

determined that 49 U.S.C. 5332 should 

be included in this list of requirements. 

A small number of national and 

regional advocacy organizations 

expressed concern that the rule does not 

provide enough detail on the standards 

that the FHWA, the FTA, State DOTs 

and MPOs should apply in certification 

reviews. We believe that the entire 

context of the rule and of the statute 

sufficiently identify the criteria to be 

used in certifying that the transportation 

planning process meets or substantially 

meets these requirements. We do not 

believe additional detail is required in 

the rule. However, the FHWA and the 

FTA will provide non-regulatory 

guidance, training and technical 

assistance, if necessary. 

Section 450.336 Applicability of NEPA 

to Metropolitan Transportation Plans 

and Programs 

The docket included very few 

comments on this section. One concern 

expressed that this section or Appendix 

A would make planning reviewable 

under NEPA. The purpose of this 

section, however, is to reiterate the 

statutory authority that the metropolitan 

transportation planning process 

decisions are not subject to review 

under NEPA. We have changed this 

section to mirror the language in 23 

U.S.C. 134(p) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(p). 

Section 450.338 Phase-In of New 

Requirements 

The docket included about 40 

documents that contained about 110 

comments on this section with about 

one-third from State DOTs, one-fifth 

from national and regional advocacy 

organizations, half from MPOs and 

COGs, and the rest from city/county/ 

State agencies. 

All comments received indicated that 

it will be difficult to meet the 

SAFETEA–LU July 1, 2007, deadline. 

Subsequent to the preparation of the 

proposed rule, but prior to its 

publication, the FHWA and the FTA 

disseminated additional guidance 

regarding the phase-in requirements on 

May 2, 2006.20 Many of the comments 

to the docket addressed issues that were 

clarified in our May 2, 2006, guidance. 

The provisions of the guidance have 

been incorporated in the regulation. 

Specifically, we have clarified that 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7251 

21This document, ‘‘Clarification of Plan 

Requirements in Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas,’’ dated May 25, 2004, is available via the 

internet at the following URL: http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/ 

planup_m.htm. 

transportation plans and TIPs adopted 

and approved prior to July 1, 2007, may 

be developed under TEA–21 

requirements of the provisions and 

requirements of this part. 

We have also clarified, in paragraph 

(a), what actions may be taken prior to 

July 1, 2007, on long-range statewide 

transportation plans and STIPs. 

One MPO, half of the national and 

regional advocacy organizations, and a 

quarter of the State DOTs commented 

that the regulations should clearly state 

that partial STIP approvals are 

allowable if one MPO or region is not 

SAFETEA–LU compliant, the other 

regions could produce a partial STIP 

that is compliant. Because the 

regulation allows for approval of partial 

STIPs (see § 450.218(b)(1)(iii)), no 

change was made to the regulation. 

Approval of partial STIPs are 

acceptable, primarily when difficulties 

are encountered in cooperatively 

developing the STIP portion for a 

particular metropolitan area or for a 

Federal Lands agency. If an MPO is able 

to produce a TIP that is SAFETEA–LU 

compliant, the Federal action would be 

to amend that TIP into the STIP, making 

the portion of the STIP that covers that 

region SAFETEA–LU compliant. 

Most of the national and regional 

advocacy organizations and several 

State DOTs commented that the 

deadline for transportation plan, STIP 

and TIP action should apply to State/ 

MPO approval action rather than the 

FHWA/FTA conformity finding. The 

FHWA and the FTA issued guidance 

‘‘Clarification of Plan Requirements in 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas’’

on this issue on May 25, 2001.21 The 

language in the rule is consistent with 

the conformity rule and current 

practice. Therefore, no change was 

made. 

Most of the commenters stated that 23 

U.S.C. 135(b) requires only ‘‘updates’’ to 

reflect changes required by the 

SAFETEA–LU, not ‘‘amendments.’’ The 

comments noted that requiring a STIP 

re-adoption for minor amendments 

would be a substantial burden and is a 

stricter interpretation of the statute than 

Congress intended. Prior to the adoption 

of this rule, there has not been an 

accepted definition of or distinction 

between the terms ‘‘update’’ or 

‘‘amendment.’’ As established in this 

rule, the FHWA and the FTA consider 

an amendment to the STIP to be a major 

change to the transportation plan or 

program. The FHWA and the FTA 

believe that any major change to the 

transportation plan or program, whether 

called an ‘‘amendment’’ or an ‘‘update’’

under this regulation, is considered for 

this purpose an ‘‘update’’ as referenced 

in 23 U.S.C. 135(b). However, an 

‘‘administrative modification’’ would 

not be covered by this requirement. This 

rule will clarify the definition of these 

terms for the future. 

One national and regional advocacy 

organization stated that Congress 

specified that the SAFETEA–LU phasein period should begin on July 1, 2007, 

not be completed by that date. The 

FHWA and the FTA believe that this is 

an incorrect interpretation of the statute. 

The FHWA and the FTA agree that 

administrative modifications can be 

made to TIPs after July 1, 2007, but 

amendments or revisions that would 

add or delete a major new project to a 

TIP, STIP, or transportation plan would 

not be acceptable after July 1, 2007 in 

the absence of meeting the provisions 

and requirements of this part. This 

information has been included in 

paragraph (d). In addition, we have 

clarified in paragraph (d) that, on or 

after July 1, 2007, both amendments and 

updates must be based on the provisions 

and requirements of this part. 

Appendix A—Linking the 

Transportation Planning and NEPA 

Processes 

As mentioned, the FHWA and the 

FTA received more than 60 comments 

on this section with about one-third 

from MPOs and COGs and one-third 

from State DOTs. National and regional 

advocacy organizations, transit agencies 

and others provided the remaining third 

of the comments on this section. In 

general, most of the comments received 

supported the concept of linking 

planning and NEPA but opposed 

including Appendix A in the rule. 

The purpose of an Appendix to a 

regulation is to improve the quality or 

use of a rule, without imposing new 

requirements or restrictions. 

Appendices provide supplemental, 

background or explanatory information 

that illustrates or amplifies a rule. 

Because Appendix A provides 

amplifying information about how State 

DOTs, MPOs, and public transportation 

operators can choose to conduct 

planning level choices and analyses so 

they may be adopted or incorporated 

into the process required by NEPA, but 

does not impose new requirements, the 

FHWA and the FTA find that Appendix 

A is useful information to be included 

in support of §§ 450.212 (Transportation 

planning studies and project 

development), 450.222 (Applicability of 

NEPA to statewide transportation plans 

and programs), 450.318 (Transportation 

planning studies and project 

development) and 450.336 

(Applicability of NEPA to metropolitan 

transportation plans and programs). 

The FHWA and the FTA recognize 

commenters’ concerns about Appendix 

A, including the recommendation that 

this information be kept as guidance 

rather than be made a part of the rule. 

First, information in an Appendix to a 

regulation does not carry regulatory 

authority in itself, but rather serves as 

guidance to further explain the 

regulation. Secondly, as stated above, 

Section 1308 of TEA–21 required the 

Secretary to eliminate the MIS as a 

separate requirement, and promulgate 

regulations to integrate such 

requirement, as appropriate, as part of 

the transportation planning process. 

Appendix A fulfills that Congressional 

direction by providing explanatory 

information regarding how the MIS 

requirement can be integrated into the 

transportation planning process. 

Inclusion of this explanatory 

information as an Appendix to the 

regulation will make the information 

more readily available to users of the 

regulation, and will provide notice to all 

interested persons of the agencies’

official guidance on MIS integration 

with the planning process. Attachment 

of Appendix A to this rule will provide 

convenient reference for State DOTs, 

MPOs and public transportation 

operator(s) who choose to incorporate 

planning results and decisions in the 

NEPA process. It will also make the 

information readily available to the 

public. Additionally, the FHWA and the 

FTA will work with Federal 

environmental, regulatory, and resource 

agencies to incorporate the principles of 

Appendix A in their day-to-day NEPA 

policies and procedures related to their 

involvement in highway and transit 

projects. For the reasons stated above, 

after careful consideration of all 

comments, the FHWA and the FTA have 

decided to attach Appendix A to the 

final rule as proposed in the NPRM. 

Based on the comments, the FHWA 

and the FTA thoroughly reviewed 

Appendix A and have made several 

changes discussed below. 

A note was added to the beginning of 

the discussion to emphasize that the 

Appendix provides additional 

information, is non-binding and should 

not be construed as a rule of general 

applicability. 

For clarification, we made small 

changes to some of the subheadings. 

Section I ‘‘Procedural’’ was changed to 

‘‘Procedural Issues’’ and Section II 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7252 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Substantive’’ was changed to 

‘‘Substantive Issues.’’

We expanded the agencies listed in 

the response to Question 1. The 

response now references ‘‘MPO, State 

DOT, or public transportation operator.’’

No changes were made to Question 2. 

In the second paragraph of the 

response to Question 3, we clarified the 

term ‘‘lead agency.’’ The sentence now 

reads ‘‘For example, the term ‘lead 

agency’ collectively means the U.S. 

Department of Transportation and a 

State or local governmental entity 

serving as a joint lead agency for the 

NEPA process.’’

In the response to Question 4, we 

clarified that the lead agencies, rather 

than the FHWA and the FTA, are 

responsible for making decisions. Also, 

in the first sentence, we emphasize that 

the lead agencies ‘‘jointly decide, and 

must agree * * *’’

No changes were made to Question 5. 

In the response to Question 6, a small 

change to add the phrase ‘‘those of’’ was 

made to the examples listed in the first 

paragraph. 

We changed the order of the phrases 

in the second bullet of the response to 

Question 7 to emphasize that the 

transportation planning process (and the 

future policy year assumptions used) 

would occur before the NEPA process. 

We also added ‘‘and the public’’ to the 

eighth bullet. The public and other 

agencies should have access to the 

planning products during NEPA 

scoping. 

In Question 8, we added ‘‘during 

NEPA scoping and’’ to the sentence 

‘‘The use of these planning-level goals 

and choices must be appropriately 

explained during NEPA scoping and in 

the NEPA document’’ to clarify that 

agencies must identify during the NEPA 

scoping process their intent to use 

planning-level decisions. 

We clarified in Question 9 what 

happens during the first-tier EIS 

process. The second-tier NEPA 

review(s) would be performed in the 

usual way. We also added ‘‘planning’’ to 

‘‘subarea planning study’’ to emphasize 

that information in this Appendix refers 

to planning level studies. Finally, we 

clarified that we are referencing the 

‘‘mandatory’’ Alternatives Analysis 

process for transit projects. 

We have deleted the second 

paragraph in the response to Question 

10. This paragraph suggested even more 

detailed decisions could be developed 

and considered during the planning 

process. Based on the comments we 

received, we want the Appendix to 

focus on planning-level decisions. 

In the response to Question 11, we 

simplified the language in the first 

paragraph. 

In the response to Question 12, the 

reference to ‘‘affected agencies’’ was 

changed to ‘‘participating agencies’’ to 

be specific regarding which agencies 

should have access to the analyses or 

studies. 

In the response to Question 13, 

‘‘special area management plans’’ was 

added to paragraph (f). In addition, ‘‘or 

current’’ was added to the phrase ‘‘the 

assessment of affected environment and 

environmental consequences conducted 

during the transportation planning 

process will not be detailed or current 

enough to meet NEPA standards’’ to 

emphasize that these assessments may 

need to be revisited during NEPA if time 

has passed between the time when the 

planning study was completed and the 

NEPA study. 

No change was made to Question 14. 

In Question 15, we added 

‘‘mitigation’’ before ‘‘banking’’ to be 

more specific. 

No change was made to Question 16. 

No change was made to Question 17. 

In the response to Question 18, we 

added ‘‘and its successor in SAFETEALU Section 6002’’ to update the 

discussion in the first paragraph. 

No change was made to Question 19. 

We updated the Website addresses in 

the ‘‘Additional Information on this 

Topic’’ section. 

A small number of national and 

regional advocacy organizations 

objected to Appendix A because it does 

not require consideration of mitigation 

to the level, extent and detail required 

for NEPA. This comment seems to 

reflect a misunderstanding of the intent 

of Appendix A. Although Appendix A 

is designed to provide clarifying 

information on how the transportation 

planning process could produce 

products that can be more readily used 

in the NEPA process, transportation 

planning process studies do not require 

the specificity or analysis required by 

NEPA. In all likelihood, the studies 

produced as part of the transportation 

planning process will only be 

foundational to subsequent NEPA 

studies and will need to be 

supplemented with additional analysis 

and detail before fully meeting the 

rigorous requirements of NEPA. 

Appendix B—Fiscal Constraint of 

Transportation Plans and Programs 

The purpose of an Appendix to a 

regulation is to improve the quality or 

use of a rule, without imposing new 

requirements or restrictions. As was 

stated, appendices provide 

supplemental, background or 

explanatory information that illustrates 

or amplifies a rule. The FHWA and the 

FTA received a significant number of 

comments on Appendix B. State DOTs, 

MPOs and COGs, national and regional 

advocacy organizations, transit agencies 

and others expressed concern about 

imposing new requirements in the 

Appendix. 

The docket included about 80 

documents that contained about 170 

comments on Appendix B. Most of the 

comments came from State DOTs and 

from MPOs and COGs in about equal 

numbers. Many national and regional 

advocacy organizations also provided 

comments on this section. A few public 

transportation providers and local 

government agencies provided the 

remainder of the comments. 

Many of the State DOTs, almost all of 

the MPOs and COGs, many of the 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations, and a few of the public 

transportation providers that 

commented on this section objected to 

the Appendix being included in 

regulation, were generally supportive of 

the guidance information but many had 

comments on individual elements of the 

text as described below. Many of the 

State DOTs and a few of the national 

and regional advocacy organizations 

objected strongly to the text on fiscal 

constraint being included in regulation 

or as guidance though some would 

accept guidance with significant 

revisions. 

When proposing Appendix B to the 

rule, the FHWA and the FTA intended 

to raise the level of awareness and 

importance in developing fiscally 

constrained transportation plans, TIPs, 

and STIPs to States, MPOs, and public 

transportation operators. Since its 

introduction under the ISTEA, fiscal 

constraint has remained a prominent 

aspect of transportation plan and 

program development, carrying through 

to the TEA–21 and now to the 

SAFETEA–LU. The FHWA and the FTA 

acknowledge that Appendix B contains 

a combination of guidance, amplifying 

information, and additional criteria. 

Given the level of controversy regarding 

this Appendix, it has been removed 

from the rule. 

Instead, the FHWA and the FTA will 

be developing and issuing revised 

guidance on fiscal constraint and 

financial planning for transportation 

plans and programs soon after this rule 

is published. 

The FHWA and the FTA find that 

three key features of Appendix B merit 

inclusion in the rule, as noted in the 

section-by-section discussions for 

§ 450.216 (Development and content of 

the statewide transportation 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7253 

22This joint guidance, ‘‘Interim FHWA/FTA 

Guidance on Fiscal Constraint for STIPs, TIPs and 

Metropolitan Plans,’’ dated June 27, 2005, is 

available via the Internet at the following URL: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcindex.htm. 

improvement program (STIP), § 450.322 

(Development and content of the 

metropolitan transportation plan), and 

§ 450.324 (Development and content of 

the transportation improvement 

program). These key features are: (1) 

Treatment of highway and transit 

operations and maintenance costs and 

revenues; (2) use of ‘‘year of expenditure 

dollars’’ in developing cost and revenue 

estimates; and (3) use of ‘‘cost ranges/ 

cost bands’’ in the outer years of the 

metropolitan transportation plan. 

Regarding the treatment of highway 

and transit operations and maintenance 

costs and revenues, the FHWA and the 

FTA realize that the 1993 planning rule 

and the NPRM interchangeably referred 

to the transportation system as either 

‘‘existing,’’ ‘‘total,’’ or ‘‘entire.’’

Several State DOTs, MPOs and COGs, 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations, and others expressed 

concern and confusion over these terms. 

Many commenters called into question 

the statutory authority for the FHWA 

and the FTA to focus on State and local 

government investments to operate and 

maintain the ‘‘system’’ as part of fiscal 

constraint and financial plans 

supporting transportation plans and 

programs. However, the statute, as 

amended by the SAFETEA–LU (23 

U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 

5303(i)(2)(C)), requires that the financial 

element of a metropolitan transportation 

plan ‘‘demonstrates how the adopted 

transportation plan can be 

implemented’’ and ‘‘indicates resources 

from public and private sources’’ that 

can be ‘‘reasonably anticipated to 

implement the plan.’’ A metropolitan 

transportation plan, as it is developed, 

must include consideration and 

recognition of how all the pieces of the 

regional transportation system will 

integrate, function and operate, not just 

those facilities which are or could be 

funded with Federal resources. To focus 

solely on the Federally-funded portion 

of the transportation system could 

create greater demands on limited 

Federal resources or jeopardize the 

value of the Federal investments made 

within that metropolitan area. 

Furthermore, outside the transportation 

planning process, there is a 

longstanding Federal requirement that 

States properly maintain, or cause to be 

maintained, any projects constructed 

under the Federal-aid Highway Program 

(23 U.S.C. 116). 

Additionally, the FHWA and the FTA 

believe that the fundamental premise 

behind the wording in the October 28, 

1993 planning rule regarding highway 

and transit operations and maintenance 

(58 FR 58040) remains sound. 

However, for purposes of clarity and 

consistency, § 450.216(n), 

§ 450.322(f)(10), and § 450.324(i) have 

been revised to better describe ‘‘the 

system’’ as Federal-aid highways (as 

defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and 

public transportation (as defined by title 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). As background, 

23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5) defines ‘‘Federal-aid 

highways’’ as ‘‘a highway eligible for 

assistance other than a highway 

classified as a local road or rural minor 

collector.’’ Additionally, these sections 

clarify that the financial plans 

supporting the metropolitan 

transportation plan and TIP and the 

financial information supporting the 

STIP are to be based on systems-level 

estimates of costs and revenue sources 

reasonably expected to be available to 

adequately operate and maintain 

Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 

U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public 

transportation (as defined by title 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 53). 

Regarding the use of ‘‘year of 

expenditure dollars’’ in developing cost 

and revenue estimates, the FHWA and 

the FTA jointly issued ‘‘Interim FHWA/ 

FTA Guidance on Fiscal Constraint for 

STIPs, TIPs, and Metropolitan Plans’’ on 

June 30, 2005.22 This Interim Guidance 

indicated that financial forecasts (for 

costs and revenues) to support the 

metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, 

and STIP may: (a) Rely on a ‘‘constant 

dollar’’ base year or (b) utilize an 

inflation rate(s) to reflect ‘‘year 

expenditure.’’ The FHWA and the FTA 

will be developing and issuing revised 

guidance on fiscal constraint and 

financial planning for transportation 

plans and programs soon after this rule 

is published. In Appendix B, the FHWA 

and the FTA proposed to exclusively 

require the use of ‘‘year of expenditure 

dollars’’ to better reflect the time-based 

value of money. This is particularly 

crucial for large-scale projects with 

construction/implementation dates 

stretching into the future. Because the 

transportation planning process serves 

as the beginning point of the larger 

‘‘project continuum’’ (i.e., moving from 

concept through construction, and later 

operations and maintenance), the 

FHWA and the FTA strongly believe 

that early disclosure of revenue and cost 

estimates reflecting time and inflation 

provides a truer set of expectations and 

future ‘‘reality’’ to the public. However, 

most of the State DOTs, a few of the 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations and some MPOs and 

COGs, commented that they should not 

be required to use ‘‘year of expenditure 

dollars.’’

The FHWA and the FTA considered 

these comments and included in 

§ 450.216(h), § 450.322(f)(10), and 

§ 450.324(d) that ‘‘year of expenditure 

dollars’’ shall be used ‘‘to the extent 

practicable.’’ While this language 

expresses the desire of the FHWA and 

the FTA for revenue and cost estimates 

to be reflected in ‘‘year of expenditure 

dollars,’’ an opportunity to use 

‘‘constant dollars’’ has been retained. 

Regarding the use of ‘‘cost ranges/cost 

bands’’ in the outer years of the 

metropolitan transportation plan, the 

FHWA and the FTA jointly issued 

‘‘Interim Guidance on Fiscal Constraint 

for STIPs, TIPs, and Metropolitan 

Plans’’ on June 30, 2005. The FHWA 

and the FTA will be developing and 

issuing revised guidance on fiscal 

constraint and financial planning for 

transportation plans and programs soon 

after this rule is published. The Interim 

Guidance indicated that for the outer 

years of the metropolitan transportation 

plan (i.e., beyond the first 10 years), the 

financial plan may reflect aggregate cost 

ranges/cost bands, as long as the future 

funding source(s) is reasonably expected 

to be available to support the projected 

cost ranges/cost bands. In the NPRM, 

the FHWA and the FTA proposed to 

provide this option to MPOs in 

developing fiscally-constrained 

metropolitan transportation plans. We 

have included this option in this rule 

because we believe it gives MPOs 

maximum flexibility to broadly define a 

large-scale transportation issue or 

problem to be addressed in the future 

that does not predispose a NEPA 

decision, while, at the same time, 

calling for the definition of a future 

funding source(s) that encompasses the 

planning-level ‘‘cost range/cost band.’’

23 CFR Part 500 

Section 500.109 Congestion 

Management Systems 

Few docket documents specifically 

referenced this section. However, the 

docket included more than 25 

documents that contained almost 30 

comments on § 450.320 (Congestion 

management process in transportation 

management areas) which is relevant to 

this section. 

As was mentioned, on May 16, 2006, 

the U.S. Secretary of Transportation 

announced a national initiative to 

address congestion related to highway, 

freight and aviation. The intent of the 

‘‘National Strategy to Reduce 

Congestion on America’s Transportation 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7254 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Network’’ is to provide a blueprint for 

Federal, State and local officials to 

tackle congestion. The States and 

MPO(s) are encouraged to seek Urban 

Partnership Agreements with a handful 

of communities willing to demonstrate 

new congestion relief strategies and 

encourages States to pass legislation 

giving the private sector a broader 

opportunity to invest in transportation. 

It calls for more widespread deployment 

of new operational technologies and 

practices that end traffic tie ups, 

designates new interstate ‘‘corridors of 

the future,’’ targets port and border 

congestion, and expands aviation 

capacity. 

U.S. DOT encourages the State DOTs 

and MPOs to consider and implement 

strategies, specifically related to 

highway and transit operations and 

expansion, freight, transportation 

pricing, other vehicle-based charges 

techniques, etc. The mechanism that the 

State DOTs and MPOs employ to 

explore these strategies is within their 

discretion. The U.S. DOT will focus its 

resources, funding, staff and technology 

to cut traffic jams and relieve freight 

bottlenecks. 

A few comments were received 

reiterating that the CMP should result in 

multimodal system performance 

measures and strategies. The FHWA and 

the FTA note that existing language 

reflects the multimodal nature of the 

CMP. Specifically, § 450.320(a)(2) 

allows for the appropriate performance 

measures for the CMP to be determined 

cooperatively by the State(s), affected 

MPO(s), and local officials in 

consultation with the operators of major 

modes of transportation in the coverage 

area. 

Several commenters asked for a 

clarification with regards to what CMP 

requirements apply in air quality 

attainment areas, as opposed to the 

requirements in air quality 

nonattainment areas. The CMP 

requirements for all TMA areas 

(attainment and nonattainment) are 

identified in §§ 450.320(a), 450.320(b), 

450.320(c), and 450.320(f). Additional 

CMP requirements that apply only to 

nonattainment TMA areas (for CO and 

ozone) are identified in § 450.320(d) and 

§ 450.320(e). 

49 CFR Part 613 

The NPRM proposed to simplify 

FTA’s cross-reference in 49 CFR Part 

613 to 23 CFR Part 450. Because there 

may be references to the three subparts 

in 49 CFR Part 613 in various other 

regulatory and guidance documents, 

FTA has made technical changes to 

what was proposed in the NPRM to 

retain the names of the subparts in this 

part the same as they were prior to this 

rule. This will reduce confusion by 

keeping the names of the subparts the 

same, but still allowing for the crossreference simplification and alignment 

of identical regulatory requirements that 

FTA had proposed. 

Distribution Tables 

The NPRM proposed to clarify and 

revise the regulation’s section headings 

to use plainer language. These changes 

have been made. For ease of reference, 

two distribution tables are provided for 

the current sections and the proposed 

sections as follows. The first 

distribution table indicates changes in 

section numbering and titles. The 

second provides details within each 

section. 

SECTION TITLE AND NUMBER

Old section New section 

Subpart A Subpart A 

450.100 Purpose .................................................................................... 450.100 Purpose. 

450.102 Applicability .............................................................................. 450.102 Applicability. 

450.104 Definitions ................................................................................ 450.104 Definitions. 

Subpart B Subpart B 

450.200 Purpose .................................................................................... 450.200 Purpose. 

450.202 Applicability .............................................................................. 450.202 Applicability. 

450.204 Definitions ................................................................................ 450.204 Definitions. 

450.206 Statewide transportation planning process: General requirements.450.206 Scope of the statewide transportation planning process. 

450.208 Statewide transportation planning process: Factors ............... 450.208 Coordination of planning process activities. 

450.210 Coordination ............................................................................. 450.210 Interested parties, public involvement, and consultation. 

450.212 Transportation planning studies and project development. 

450.212 Public involvement ................................................................... 450.214 Development and content of the long-range statewide transportation plan. 

450.214 Statewide transportation plan .................................................. 450.216 Development and content of the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). 

450.216 Statewide transportation .......................................................... 450.218 Self-certifications, Federal improvement program (STIP). 

findings, and Federal approvals. 

450.218 Funding .................................................................................... 450.220 Project selection from the STIP. 

450.220 Approvals ................................................................................. 450.222 Applicability of NEPA to statewide transportation plans and 

programs. 

450.222 Project selection for implementation ........................................ 450.224 Phase-in of new requirements. 

Subpart C Subpart C 

450.300 Purpose .................................................................................... 450.300 Purpose. 

450.302 Applicability .............................................................................. 450.302 Applicability. 

450.304 Definitions ................................................................................ 450.304 Definitions. 

450.306 Metropolitan planning organizations: Designation and redesignation.450.306 Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process. 

450.308 Metropolitan planning organization: Metropolitan planning 

boundary.

450.308 Funding for transportation planning and unified planning 

work programs. 

450.310 Metropolitan planning organization: planning agreements ...... 450.310 Metropolitan planning organization designation and redesignation. 

450.312 Metropolitan transportation planning: Responsibilities, cooperation, and coordination.450.312 Metropolitan planning area boundaries. 

450.314 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Unified planning work programs.450.314 Metropolitan planning agreements. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7255 

SECTION TITLE AND NUMBER—Continued 

Old section New section 

450.316 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Elements ........ 450.316 Interested parties, participation and consultation.

450.318 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Major metropolitan transportation investments.450.318 Transportation planning studies and project development. 

450.320 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Relation to 

management systems.

450.320 Congestion management process in transportation management areas. 

450.322 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Transportation 

plan.

450.322 Development and content of the metropolitan transportation 

plan. 

450.324 Transportation improvement program: General ...................... 450.324 Development and content of the transportation improvement 

program (TIP). 

450.326 Transportation improvement program: modification ................ 450.326 TIP revisions and relationship to the STIP. 

450.328 Transportation improvement program: Relationship to statewide TIP.450.328 TIP action by the FHWA and the FTA. 

450.330 Transportation improvement program: Action required by 

FHWA/FTA.

450.330 Project selection from the TIP. 

450.332 Project selection for implementation ........................................ 450.332 Annual listing of obligated projects.

450.334 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Certification .... 450.334 Self-certifications and Federal certifications. 

450.336 Phase-in of new requirements ................................................. 450.336 Applicability of NEPA to metropolitan transportation plans 

and programs. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.338 Phase-in of new requirements. 

Section 500 

500.109 CMS ......................................................................................... 500.109 CMS. 

The following distribution table 

identifies details for each existing 

section and proposed section: 

Old section New section 

Subpart A Subpart A 

450.100 ..................................................................................................... 450.100 [Revised]. 

450.102 ..................................................................................................... 450.102. 

450.104 ..................................................................................................... 450.104. 

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

None ......................................................................................................... Administrative modification [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Alternatives analysis [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Amendment [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Attainment area [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Available funds [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Committed funds [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Conformity [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Conformity lapse [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Congestion management process [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Consideration [New]. 

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

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

None ......................................................................................................... Coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan [New]. 

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

None ......................................................................................................... Design concept [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Design scope [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Designated recipient [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Environmental mitigation activities [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Federal land management agency [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Federally funded non-emergency transportation services [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Financially constrained or Fiscal constraint [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Financial plan [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Freight shippers [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Full funding grant agreement [New]. 

Governor ................................................................................................... Governor. 

None ......................................................................................................... Illustrative project [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Indian Tribal government [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Intelligent transportation system (ITS) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Interim metropolitan transportation plan [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Interim transportation improvement program (TIP) [New]. 

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

Major metropolitan transportation investment .......................................... Removed. 

Management system ................................................................................ Management system [Revised]. 

Metropolitan planning area ....................................................................... Metropolitan planning area (MPA) [Revised]. 

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

(MPO) ....................................................................................................... (MPO) [Revised]. 

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


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7256 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Old section New section 

None ......................................................................................................... National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) [New]. 

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

Non-metropolitan area .............................................................................. Non-metropolitan area. 

Non-metropolitan local official .................................................................. Non-metropolitan local official. 

None ......................................................................................................... Obligated projects [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Operational and management strategies [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Project construction grant agreement [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Project selection [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Provider of freight transportation services [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Public transportation operator [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Regional ITS architecture [New]. 

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

None ......................................................................................................... Revision [New]. 

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

State implementation plan (SIP) .............................................................. State implementation plan (SIP) [Revised]. 

Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) ........................... Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) [Revised]. 

Statewide transportation plan ................................................................... Long-range statewide transportation plan [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Strategic highway safety plan [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Transportation control measures (TCMs) [New]. 

Transportation improvement program (TIP) ............................................. Transportation improvement program (TIP) [Revised]. 

Transportation management area (TMA) ................................................. Transportation management area (TMA) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Unified planning work program (UPWP) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Update [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Urbanized area [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Users of public transportation [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... Visualization techniques [New]. 

Subpart B Subpart B 

450.200 ..................................................................................................... 450.200 [Revised]. 

450.202 ..................................................................................................... 450.202 [Revised]. 

450.204 ..................................................................................................... 450.204 [Revised]. 

450.206(a)(1) through (a)(5) ..................................................................... Removed. 

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

450.206(c) ................................................................................................. 450.208(a)(4). 

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

450.208(a)(2) through (a)(23) ................................................................... 450.206(a)(1) through (a)(8) [Revised]. 

450.208(b) ................................................................................................ 450.206(b) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.206(c) [New]. 

450.210(a)(1) through (a)(13) ................................................................... 450.208(a)(1) through (a)(7) [Revised]. 

450.210(b) ................................................................................................ Removed. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.208(b) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.208(c) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.208(e) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.208(f) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.208(g) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.208(h) [New]. 

450.212(a) through (g) ............................................................................. 450.210(a) [Revised]. 

450.212(h) through (i) ............................................................................... 450.210(b)(1) through (b)(2) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.210(c) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.212(a) through (c) [New]. 

450.214(a) through (b)(3) ......................................................................... 450.214(a) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.214(b) [New]. 

450.214(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 450.214(f) [Revised]. 

450.214(b)(5) ............................................................................................ 450.214(c) [Revised]. 

450.214(b)(6) ............................................................................................ 450.214(l) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.214(d) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.214(e) [New]. 

450.214(c)(1) through (c)(5) ..................................................................... 450.214(g) and (h) [Revised]. 

450.214(d) ................................................................................................ Removed. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.214(i) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.214(j) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.214(m) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.214(n) [New]. 

450.214(e) ................................................................................................ 450.214(o). 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.214(p) [New]. 

450.214(f) ................................................................................................. 450.214(g) [Revised].

450.216(a) last sentence .......................................................................... 450.216(f) [Revised]. 

450.216(a)(1) through (a)(2) ..................................................................... 450.216(a) through (b) [Revised]. 

450.216(a)(3) ............................................................................................ 450.216(k). 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.216(l) [New]. 

450.216(a)(4) ............................................................................................ 450.216(b) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.216(d) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.216(e) [New]. 

450.216(a)(5) ............................................................................................ 450.216(m) [Revised]. 

450.216(a)(6) ............................................................................................ 450.216(g) [Revised]. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7257 

Old section New section 

450.216(a)(7) ............................................................................................ 450.216(h) [Revised]. 

450.216(a)(8) ............................................................................................ 450.216(i) [Revised]. 

450.216(a)(9) ............................................................................................ Removed. 

450.216(b) ................................................................................................ 450.216(j) [Revised.] 

450.216(b) last sentence .......................................................................... 450.216(f). 

450.216(c) through (d) .............................................................................. 450.216(n) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.216(o) [New]. 

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

450.218 ..................................................................................................... 450.206(d) [Revised]. 

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

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

None ......................................................................................................... 450.222 [New]. 

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

Subpart C Subpart C 

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

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

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

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

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

None ......................................................................................................... 450.310(g) [New]. 

450.306(f) ................................................................................................. Removed. 

450.306(g) ................................................................................................ 450.310(i) [Revised]. 

450.306(h) ................................................................................................ 450.310(j) [Revised]. 

450.306(i) through (j) ................................................................................ Removed. 

450.306(k) ................................................................................................. 450.310(k) through (l) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.310(k) [New]. 

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

None ......................................................................................................... 450.312(c) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.312(d) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.312(e) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.312(f) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.312(g) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.312(h) [New]. 

450.308(d) ................................................................................................ 450.312(j) [Revised]. 

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

450.310(c) ................................................................................................. 450.314(c). 

450.310(e) ................................................................................................ Removed. 

450.310(f) ................................................................................................. 450.314(b) [Revised].

450.310(g) ................................................................................................ 450.314(d) [Revised]. 

450.310(h) ................................................................................................ Removed. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.314(f) [New]. 

450.312(a) ................................................................................................ 450.314(a) [Revised]. 

450.312(b) ................................................................................................ 450.322(c) [Revised]. 

450.312(c) ................................................................................................. 450.322(d) [Revised].

450.312(d) ................................................................................................ Removed. 

450.312(e) ................................................................................................ 450.314(b), (d), and (e) [Revised]. 

450.312(f) ................................................................................................. 450.306(i). 

450.312(g) ................................................................................................ Removed. 

450.312(h) ................................................................................................ Removed. 

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

None ......................................................................................................... 450.316(e) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.308(a) [New]. 

450.314(a) through (d) ............................................................................. 450.308(b) through (e) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.308(f) [New]. 

450.316(a)(1) through (a)(16) ................................................................... 450.306(a)(1) through (a)(8) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.306(b) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.306(c) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.306(d) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.306(e) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.306(f) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.306(g) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.306(h) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.316(a) [New]. 

450.316(b)(1)(i) ......................................................................................... 450.316(a)(3) [Revised]. 

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

450.316(b)(1)(vii) ...................................................................................... 450.316(a)(2) [Revised].

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

450.316(b)(2) ............................................................................................ Removed. 

450.316(b)(3) ............................................................................................ Removed. 

450.316(b)(4) ............................................................................................ Removed. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.316(b) [New]. 

450.312(i) .................................................................................................. 450.316(c). 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.316(d) [New]. 

450.316(c) ................................................................................................. 450.306(j) [Revised].


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7258 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Old section New section 

450.316(d) ................................................................................................ Removed. 

450.318(a) through (f) .............................................................................. 450.318(a) through (e) [Revised]. 

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

450.320(b) ................................................................................................ 450.320(d) and (e) [Revised]. 

450.320(c) ................................................................................................. 450.320(b) [Revised].

450.320(d) ................................................................................................ 450.320(b) [Revised]. 

500.109(a) second, fourth, and fifth sentences ....................................... 450.320(b) [Revised]. 

500.109(b) ................................................................................................ 450.320(c) [Revised]. 

500.109(b)(1) through (b)(6) ..................................................................... 450.320(c)(1) through (c)(6) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.320(f) [New]. 

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

None ......................................................................................................... 450.322(e) [New]. 

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

450.322(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 450.322(f)(8) [Revised]. 

450.322(b)(4) through (b)(7) ..................................................................... 450.322(f)(3) through (f)(6) [Revised]. 

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

450.322(b)(9) ............................................................................................ 450.322(f)(7) and (g)(1) through (g)(2) [Revised]. 

450.322(b)(10) .......................................................................................... 450.324(f)(9) [Revised].

450.322(b)(11) .......................................................................................... 450.322(f)(10) [Revised]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.322(h) [New]. 

450.322(c) ................................................................................................. 450.322(i) [Revised].

None ......................................................................................................... 450.322(j) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.322(k) [New]. 

450.322(d) ................................................................................................ 450.322(l) [Revised]. 

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

450.324(j) through (k) ............................................................................... Removed. 

450.324(l) through (m) .............................................................................. 450.324(j) through (k) [Revised]. 

450.324(n) ................................................................................................ 450.324(l). 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.324(m) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.324(n) [New]. 

None ......................................................................................................... 450.324(o) [New]. 

450.326 ..................................................................................................... 450.326(a) [Revised]. 

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

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

None ......................................................................................................... 450.328(c) through (e) [New]. 

450.324(o) ................................................................................................ 450.328(f) [Revised]. 

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

None ......................................................................................................... 450.332(a) through (c) [New]. 

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

None ......................................................................................................... 450.336 [New]. 

450.336 ..................................................................................................... 450.338(a) through (e) [Revised]. 

500.109 first and third sentences ............................................................. 500.109(a) [Revised]. 

500.109(a) second, fourth, and fifth sentences ....................................... 500.109(b) [Revised]. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

The FHWA and the FTA received and 

considered more than 1,600 comments 

by the comment closing date of 

September 7, 2006. In addition, we 

considered all comments received after 

the closing date to the extent 

practicable. 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The FHWA and the FTA have 

determined that this rulemaking is a 

significant regulatory action within the 

meaning of Executive Order 12866, and 

is significant under Department of 

Transportation regulatory policies and 

procedures because of substantial State, 

local government, congressional, and 

public interest. These interests involve 

receipt of Federal financial support for 

transportation investments, appropriate 

compliance with statutory requirements, 

and balancing of transportation mobility 

and environmental goals. This rule will 

add new coordination and 

documentation requirements (e.g., 

greater public outreach and consultation 

with State and local planning and 

resource agencies, annual listing of 

obligated projects, etc.), but will reduce 

the frequency of some existing 

regulatory reporting requirements (e.g., 

metropolitan transportation plan, STIP/ 

TIP, and certification reviews). The 

FHWA and the FTA have sought to 

maintain previous flexibility of 

operation wherever possible for State 

DOTs, MPOs, and other affected 

organizations, and to utilize existing 

processes to accomplish any new tasks 

or activities. We did not receive any 

comments on this analysis. 

The FHWA and the FTA conducted a 

cost analysis identifying each of the 

proposed regulatory changes that would 

have a significant cost impact for MPOs 

or State DOTs, and have estimated those 

costs on an annual basis. This cost 

analysis was posted on the docket as a 

separate document, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Cost Analysis of Proposed Rulemaking.’’

We did not receive any comments on 

the cost analysis. We have not made 

changes that substantively affect the 

cost or benefits calculations used in the 

analysis. Therefore, no changes are 

made to the cost analysis and we believe 

that the economic impact of this 

rulemaking will be minimal. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354; 5 U.S.C. 

601–612), the FHWA and the FTA have 

determined that States and MPOs are 

not included in the definition of small 

entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Small 

governmental jurisdictions are limited 

to representations of populations of less 

than 50,000. MPOs, by definition, 

represent urbanized areas having a 

minimum population of 50,000. 

Therefore the Regulatory Flexibility Act 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7259 

23A copy of this letter is included in the docket. 

does not apply. We did not receive any 

comments on the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act determination. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not impose unfunded 

mandates as defined by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure of non-Federal funds by 

State, local, and Indian Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $128.1 million in any 

one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). 

Additionally, the definition of 

‘‘Federal mandate’’ in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act excludes financial 

assistance of the type in which State, 

local, or Indian Tribal governments have 

authority to adjust their participation in 

the program in accordance with changes 

made in the program by the Federal 

government. The Federal-aid highway 

program and Federal Transit Act permit 

this type of flexibility to the States. We 

did not receive any comments on the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, and the FHWA and the FTA 

have determined that this action will 

not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism assessment. The FHWA 

and the FTA have also determined that 

this action will not preempt any State 

law or regulation or affect the States’

ability to discharge traditional State 

governmental functions. 

By letter dated November 29, 2005, 

the FHWA and the FTA solicited 

comments from the National Governors’

Association (NGA) as representatives for 

the elected State officials on the 

Federalism implications of this 

proposed rule.23 An identical letter was 

sent on the same date to several other 

organizations representing elected 

officials and Indian Tribal governments. 

These organizations were: The National 

Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), 

the American Public Works Association 

(APWA), the Association of 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(AMPO), the National Association of 

Regional Councils (NARC), the National 

Association of Counties (NACO), the 

Conference of Mayors (COM), the 

National Association of City 

Transportation Officials (NACTO), and 

the National Congress of American 

Indians (NCAI). 

In response to this letter, AMPO and 

NARC requested a meeting to discuss 

their Federalism concerns. On 

December 21, 2005, we met with 

representatives from AMPO and NARC. 

A summary of this meeting is available 

in the docket. Briefly, both AMPO and 

NARC expressed concern with the 

potential burdens that new 

requirements might have on MPOs, 

especially the smaller MPOs. In 

particular, AMPO and NARC were 

concerned with our implementation of 

the SAFETEA–LU provisions relating to 

public participation, congestion 

management process, and 

implementation of planning update 

cycles. We did consider these concerns 

when drafting the final rule. We did not 

receive additional comments on 

Federalism issues. 

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. The FHWA and the 

FTA did not receive any comments on 

these programs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The FHWA 

and the FTA have determined that this 

regulation contains collection of 

information requirements for the 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. However, the FHWA and the FTA 

believe that any increases in burden 

hours per submission are more than 

offset by decreases in the frequency of 

collection for these information 

requirements. 

The reporting requirements for 

metropolitan planning unified planning 

work programs (UPWPs), transportation 

plans, and transportation improvement 

programs (TIPs) are approved under 

OMB control number 2132–0529. Under 

the previous planning regulations, the 

burden hours were estimated to be 

314,900; however, due to the reduction 

in the frequency of collection, the 

burden hours for this final rule are 

estimated to be only 250,295 hours. 

That is a reduction of 64,605 burden 

hours. This collection has been 

approved by OMB with an expiration 

date of August 31, 2009. The 

information reporting requirements for 

State planning work programs were 

approved by the OMB under control 

number 2125–0039 (expiration date: 

November 30, 2007). However, we have 

combined these collections into one 

OMB control number (2132–0529). The 

FTA conducted the analysis supporting 

this approval on behalf of both the FTA 

and the FHWA, since the regulations are 

jointly issued by both agencies. The 

reporting requirements for statewide 

transportation plans and programs are 

also approved under this same OMB 

control number. The information 

collection requirements addressed 

under the current OMB approval 

number (2132–0529) impose a total 

burden of 250,295 hours on the 

planning agencies that must comply 

with the requirements in the new 

regulation. The FHWA and the FTA 

conducted an analysis of the change in 

burden hours attributed to the 

rulemaking, based on estimates used in 

the submission for OMB approval. This 

analysis is included on the docket as a 

separate document entitled ‘‘Estimated 

Change in Reporting Burden Hours 

Attributable to the final rule.’’

The docket contained a comment on 

the estimated change in reporting 

burden hours. The commenter stated 

that the analysis was unrealistically low 

because it failed to account for the costs 

of implementing the proposed fiscal 

constraint and STIP amendment 

provisions. The FHWA and the FTA 

disagree with this comment. The fiscal 

constraint requirements are not new 

with this rulemaking; they were 

introduced under the ISTEA, and 

subsequently reaffirmed under the 

SAFETEA–LU (23 U.S.C. 134 (i)(2)(C), 

23 U.S.C. 134 (j)(1)(C), 49 U.S.C. 5301 

(a)(1), and 49 U.S.C. 5303 (j)(2)(C)). 

Appendix B (Fiscal Constraint of 

Transportation Plans and Programs) has 

been removed from the rule, although 

three key features were included in 

appropriate sections. Please see the 

responses to the comments on 

Appendix B for additional background 

information and explanation. 

Consequently, the FHWA and the 

FTA find that the fiscal constraint 

provision does not add new burden on 

State DOTs and MPOs, and therefore is 

not subject to a cost analysis. 

Furthermore the FHWA and the FTA 

believe that the changes in definitions 

regarding TIP/STIP amendments 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7260 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

actually reduce the administrative 

burden by introducing the concept of an 

‘‘administrative modification,’’ which 

allows minor changes to be made 

without requiring public review and 

comment, redemonstration of fiscal 

constraint, or a conformity 

determination. Finally, the cost analysis 

does specifically recognize that some 

additional costs may be incurred to 

address new coordination provisions, 

and estimates an average cost increase 

for State DOTs of approximately 

$54,000 per year. Some States may incur 

higher costs, while others may incur 

lower costs. However, these additional 

costs for transportation plan 

development are partially offset by 

estimated cost savings due to other 

provisions (e.g., reduction in the 

required frequency of STIP updates). No 

substantial change was made to the 

‘‘Estimated Change in Reporting Burden 

Hours Attributable to the final rule’’ as 

a result of these comments. 

Additionally, there has been no change 

since the approval of the most recent 

information collection request (ICR) and 

no change between the NPRM and final 

rule. 

The analysis results are summarized 

below. 

The creation and submission of 

required reports and documents have 

been limited to those specifically 

required by 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 

in 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 or essential 

to the performance of our findings, 

certifications and/or approvals. The 

final rule will have no significant 

change in the submission requirements 

for UPWPs or State planning work 

programs; therefore there is no change 

in the annual reporting burden for this 

element. The final rule will require that 

additional sections be added to the 

metropolitan and statewide 

transportation plans, which we estimate 

would increase the required level of 

effort by 20 percent over current plan 

development. However, the final rule 

also reduces the required frequency of 

plan submission from 3 to 4 years for 

MPOs located in nonattainment or 

maintenance areas. One half of all MPOs 

are located in nonattainment or 

maintenance areas and would realize a 

reduction in their annual reporting 

burden. Based on the burden hours used 

in the FTA analysis submitted for OMB 

approval, the decrease in burden hours 

for MPOs located in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas more than offsets the 

increase in burden hours associated 

with the new sections required in the 

plans. 

The final rule requires that State and 

metropolitan transportation 

improvement program (STIP and TIP) 

documents include 4 years of projects; 

an increase from 3 years of projects 

required under the previous regulations. 

The inclusion of an additional year of 

projects will increase the reporting 

burden associated with TIP 

development by 10 percent over current 

levels. However, the final rule also 

reduces the required frequency of TIP 

submission from 2 years to 4 years for 

all States and MPOs. Based on the 

burden hours used in the FTA analysis 

submitted for OMB approval, the 

decrease in burden hours associated 

with the reduced frequency of 

submission more than offsets the 

increase in burden hours associated 

with including an additional year of 

projects in the TIP. The FHWA and the 

FTA have not made changes to the rule 

that would substantively affect this 

analysis. None of the changes made to 

the regulatory language between the 

NPRM and the final rule alter 

information collection requirements. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The FHWA and the FTA have 

analyzed this action for the purpose of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), and have 

determined that this action would not 

have any effect on the quality of the 

environment. A small number of 

national and regional advocacy 

organizations wrote that this rulemaking 

process should be subject to NEPA 

because certain regulatory provisions 

(e.g., Appendix A (Linking the 

transportation planning and NEPA 

processes), § 450.212 (Transportation 

planning studies and project 

development), and § 450.318 

(Transportation planning studies and 

project development)) will impact how 

environmental considerations are 

addressed by State DOTs and MPOs. 

The FHWA and the FTA disagree. The 

proposed rule defines a process for 

carrying out the transportation planning 

provisions as specified in the 

SAFETEA–LU. It does not rescind or 

alter any of the requirements specified 

under NEPA with respect to overall long 

range transportation planning or project 

evaluation. Individual plans and 

projects submitted by State DOTs and 

MPOs would continue to be subject to 

NEPA requirements. 

Furthermore, the SAFETEA–LU 

clearly states in 23 U.S.C. 135(j) and 49 

U.S.C. 5304(j) that ‘‘any decision by the 

Secretary concerning a metropolitan or 

statewide transportation plan or the 

transportation improvement program 

shall not be considered to be a Federal 

action subject to review under [NEPA].’’

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. The FHWA and the FTA did 

not receive any comment on this 

determination. 

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. The 

FHWA and the FTA did not receive any 

comment on this determination. 

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. The FHWA 

and the FTA did not receive any 

comment on this determination. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA and the FTA have 

analyzed this action under Executive 

Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, 

and believe that the action will not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes; will not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian Tribal governments; and will not 

preempt Tribal laws. The planning 

regulations contain requirements for 

States to consult with Indian Tribal 

governments in the planning process. 

Tribes are required under 25 CFR part 

170 to develop long range plans and 

develop an Indian Reservation Roads 

(IRR) TIP for programming IRR projects. 

However, the requirements in 25 CFR 

part 170 and would not be changed by 

this rulemaking. Therefore, a Tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required. The FHWA and the FTA did 

not receive any comment on this 

analysis or determination. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

We have analyzed this action under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001. 

We have determined that it is not a 

significant energy action under that 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7261 

order because although it is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. The FHWA and the FTA did 

not receive any comment on this 

determination. 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number 

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN contained 

in the heading of this document can be 

used to cross-reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects 

23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 

Grant Programs—transportation, 

Highway and roads, Mass 

transportation, Reporting and record 

keeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 613 

Grant Programs—transportation, 

Highway and roads, Mass 

transportation, Reporting and record 

keeping requirements. 

Issued on: January 29, 2007. 

J. Richard Capka, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

Issued on: January 31, 2007. 

James S. Simpson, 

Federal Transit Administrator. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the FHWA and the FTA 

amend title 23, parts 450 and 500, and 

title 49, part 613, Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

Title 23—Highways 

■ 1. Revise Part 450 to read as follows: 

PART 450—PLANNING ASSISTANCE 

AND STANDARDS 

Subpart A—Transportation Planning and 

Programming Definitions 

Sec. 

450.100 Purpose. 

450.102 Applicability. 

450.104 Definitions. 

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation 

Planning and Programming 

450.200 Purpose. 

450.202 Applicability. 

450.204 Definitions. 

450.206 Scope of the statewide 

transportation planning process. 

450.208 Coordination of planning process 

activities. 

450.210 Interested parties, public 

involvement, and consultation. 

450.212 Transportation planning studies 

and project development. 

450.214 Development and content of the 

long-range statewide transportation plan. 

450.216 Development and content of the 

statewide transportation improvement 

program (STIP). 

450.218 Self-certifications, Federal 

findings, and Federal approvals. 

450.220 Project selection from the STIP. 

450.222 Applicability of NEPA to statewide 

transportation plans and programs. 

450.224 Phase-in of new requirements. 

Subpart C—Metropolitan Transportation 

Planning and Programming 

Sec. 

450.300 Purpose. 

450.302 Applicability. 

450.304 Definitions. 

450.306 Scope of the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. 

450.308 Funding for transportation 

planning and unified planning work 

programs. 

450.310 Metropolitan planning organization 

designation and redesignation. 

450.312 Metropolitan planning area 

boundaries. 

450.314 Metropolitan planning agreements. 

450.316 Interested parties, participation, 

and consultation. 

450.318 Transportation planning studies 

and project development. 

450.320 Congestion management process in 

transportation management areas. 

450.322 Development and content of the 

metropolitan transportation plan. 

450.324 Development and content of the 

transportation improvement program 

(TIP). 

450.326 TIP revisions and relationship to 

the STIP. 

450.328 TIP action by the FHWA and the 

FTA. 

450.330 Project selection from the TIP. 

450.332 Annual listing of obligated 

projects. 

450.334 Self-certifications and Federal 

certifications. 

450.336 Applicability of NEPA to 

metropolitan transportation plans and 

programs. 

450.338 Phase-in of new requirements. 

Appendix A to part 450—Linking the 

transportation planning and NEPA processes. 

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

U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304; 

49 CFR 1.48 and 1.51. 

Subpart A—Transportation Planning 

and Programming Definitions 

§ 450.100 Purpose. 

The purpose of this subpart is to 

provide definitions for terms used in 

this part. 

§ 450.102 Applicability. 

The definitions in this subpart are 

applicable to this part, except as 

otherwise provided. 

§ 450.104 Definitions. 

Unless otherwise specified, the 

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

U.S.C. 5302 are applicable to this part. 

Administrative modification means a 

minor revision to a long-range statewide 

or metropolitan transportation plan, 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP), or Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) that 

includes minor changes to project/ 

project phase costs, minor changes to 

funding sources of previously-included 

projects, and minor changes to project/ 

project phase initiation dates. An 

administrative modification is a revision 

that does not require public review and 

comment, redemonstration of fiscal 

constraint, or a conformity 

determination (in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas). 

Alternatives analysis (AA) means a 

study required for eligibility of funding 

under the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA’s) Capital 

Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 

5309), which includes an assessment of 

a range of alternatives designed to 

address a transportation problem in a 

corridor or subarea, resulting in 

sufficient information to support 

selection by State and local officials of 

a locally preferred alternative for 

adoption into a metropolitan 

transportation plan, and for the 

Secretary to make decisions to advance 

the locally preferred alternative through 

the project development process, as set 

forth in 49 CFR part 611 (Major Capital 

Investment Projects). 

Amendment means a revision to a 

long-range statewide or metropolitan 

transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that 

involves a major change to a project 

included in a metropolitan 

transportation plan, TIP, or STIP, 

including the addition or deletion of a 

project or a major change in project cost, 

project/project phase initiation dates, or 

a major change in design concept or 

design scope (e.g., changing project 

termini or the number of through traffic 

lanes). Changes to projects that are 

included only for illustrative purposes 

do not require an amendment. An 

amendment is a revision that requires 

public review and comment, 

redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or 

a conformity determination (for 

metropolitan transportation plans and 

TIPs involving ‘‘non-exempt’’ projects 

in nonattainment and maintenance 

areas). In the context of a long-range 

statewide transportation plan, an 

amendment is a revision approved by 

the State in accordance with its public 

involvement process. 

Attainment area means any 

geographic area in which levels of a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7262 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

given criteria air pollutant (e.g., ozone, 

carbon monoxide, PM10, PM2.5, and 

nitrogen dioxide) meet the health-based 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for that pollutant. An area 

may be an attainment area for one 

pollutant and a nonattainment area for 

others. A ‘‘maintenance area’’ (see 

definition below) is not considered an 

attainment area for transportation 

planning purposes. 

Available funds means funds derived 

from an existing source dedicated to or 

historically used for transportation 

purposes. For Federal funds, authorized 

and/or appropriated funds and the 

extrapolation of formula and 

discretionary funds at historic rates of 

increase are considered ‘‘available.’’ A 

similar approach may be used for State 

and local funds that are dedicated to or 

historically used for transportation 

purposes. 

Committed funds means funds that 

have been dedicated or obligated for 

transportation purposes. For State funds 

that are not dedicated to transportation 

purposes, only those funds over which 

the Governor has control may be 

considered ‘‘committed.’’ Approval of a 

TIP by the Governor is considered a 

commitment of those funds over which 

the Governor has control. For local or 

private sources of funds not dedicated 

to or historically used for transportation 

purposes (including donations of 

property), a commitment in writing 

(e.g., letter of intent) by the responsible 

official or body having control of the 

funds may be considered a commitment. 

For projects involving 49 U.S.C. 5309 

funding, execution of a Full Funding 

Grant Agreement (or equivalent) or a 

Project Construction Grant Agreement 

with the USDOT shall be considered a 

multi-year commitment of Federal 

funds. 

Conformity means a Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7506(c)) requirement that ensures 

that Federal funding and approval are 

given to transportation plans, programs 

and projects that are consistent with the 

air quality goals established by a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity, 

to the purpose of the SIP, means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing violations, or delay timely 

attainment of the NAAQS. The 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93) sets forth policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of transportation 

activities. 

Conformity lapse means, pursuant to 

section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7506(c)), as amended, that the 

conformity determination for a 

metropolitan transportation plan or TIP 

has expired and thus there is no 

currently conforming metropolitan 

transportation plan or TIP. 

Congestion management process 

means a systematic approach required 

in transportation management areas 

(TMAs) that provides for effective 

management and operation, based on a 

cooperatively developed and 

implemented metropolitan-wide 

strategy, of new and existing 

transportation facilities eligible for 

funding under title 23 U.S.C., and title 

49 U.S.C., through the use of operational 

management strategies. 

Consideration means that one or more 

parties takes into account the opinions, 

action, and relevant information from 

other parties in making a decision or 

determining a course of action. 

Consultation means that one or more 

parties confer with other identified 

parties in accordance with an 

established process and, prior to taking 

action(s), considers the views of the 

other parties and periodically informs 

them about action(s) taken. This 

definition does not apply to the 

‘‘consultation’’ performed by the States 

and the MPOs in comparing the longrange statewide transportation plan and 

the metropolitan transportation plan, 

respectively, to State and Tribal 

conservation plans or maps or 

inventories of natural or historic 

resources (see § 450.214(i) and 

§ 450.322(g)(1) and (g)(2)). 

Cooperation means that the parties 

involved in carrying out the 

transportation planning and 

programming processes work together to 

achieve a common goal or objective. 

Coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plan means a 

locally developed, coordinated 

transportation plan that identifies the 

transportation needs of individuals with 

disabilities, older adults, and people 

with low incomes, provides strategies 

for meeting those local needs, and 

prioritizes transportation services for 

funding and implementation. 

Coordination means the cooperative 

development of plans, programs, and 

schedules among agencies and entities 

with legal standing and adjustment of 

such plans, programs, and schedules to 

achieve general consistency, as 

appropriate. 

Design concept means the type of 

facility identified for a transportation 

improvement project (e.g., freeway, 

expressway, arterial highway, gradeseparated highway, toll road, reserved 

right-of-way rail transit, mixed-traffic 

rail transit, or busway). 

Design scope means the aspects that 

will affect the proposed facility’s impact 

on the region, usually as they relate to 

vehicle or person carrying capacity and 

control (e.g., number of lanes or tracks 

to be constructed or added, length of 

project, signalization, safety features, 

access control including approximate 

number and location of interchanges, or 

preferential treatment for highoccupancy vehicles). 

Designated recipient means an entity 

designated, in accordance with the 

planning process under 49 U.S.C. 5303, 

5304, and 5306, by the chief executive 

officer of a State, responsible local 

officials, and publicly-owned operators 

of public transportation, to receive and 

apportion amounts under 49 U.S.C. 

5336 that are attributable to 

transportation management areas 

(TMAs) identified under 49 U.S.C. 5303, 

or a State regional authority if the 

authority is responsible under the laws 

of a State for a capital project and for 

financing and directly providing public 

transportation. 

Environmental mitigation activities 

means strategies, policies, programs, 

actions, and activities that, over time, 

will serve to avoid, minimize, or 

compensate for (by replacing or 

providing substitute resources) the 

impacts to or disruption of elements of 

the human and natural environment 

associated with the implementation of a 

long-range statewide transportation plan 

or metropolitan transportation plan. The 

human and natural environment 

includes, for example, neighborhoods 

and communities, homes and 

businesses, cultural resources, parks 

and recreation areas, wetlands and 

water sources, forested and other 

natural areas, agricultural areas, 

endangered and threatened species, and 

the ambient air. The environmental 

mitigation strategies and activities are 

intended to be regional in scope, and 

may not necessarily address potential 

project-level impacts. 

Federal land management agency 

means units of the Federal Government 

currently responsible for the 

administration of public lands (e.g., U.S. 

Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

and the National Park Service). 

Federally funded non-emergency 

transportation services means 

transportation services provided to the 

general public, including those with 

special transport needs, by public 

transit, private non-profit service 

providers, and private third-party 

contractors to public agencies. 

Financial plan means documentation 

required to be included with a 

metropolitan transportation plan and 

TIP (and optional for the long-range 

statewide transportation plan and STIP) 

that demonstrates the consistency 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7263 

between reasonably available and 

projected sources of Federal, State, 

local, and private revenues and the costs 

of implementing proposed 

transportation system improvements. 

Financially constrained or Fiscal 

constraint means that the metropolitan 

transportation plan, TIP, and STIP 

includes sufficient financial information 

for demonstrating that projects in the 

metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, 

and STIP can be implemented using 

committed, available, or reasonably 

available revenue sources, with 

reasonable assurance that the federally 

supported transportation system is 

being adequately operated and 

maintained. For the TIP and the STIP, 

financial constraint/fiscal constraint 

applies to each program year. 

Additionally, projects in air quality 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

can be included in the first two years of 

the TIP and STIP only if funds are 

‘‘available’’ or ‘‘committed.’’

Freight shippers means any business 

that routinely transports its products 

from one location to another by 

providers of freight transportation 

services or by its own vehicle fleet. 

Full funding grant agreement means 

an instrument that defines the scope of 

a project, the Federal financial 

contribution, and other terms and 

conditions for funding New Starts 

projects as required by 49 U.S.C. 

5309(d)(1). 

Governor means the Governor of any 

of the 50 States or the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico or the Mayor of the 

District of Columbia. 

Illustrative project means an 

additional transportation project that 

may (but is not required to) be included 

in a financial plan for a metropolitan 

transportation plan, TIP, or STIP if 

reasonable additional resources were to 

become available. 

Indian Tribal government means a 

duly formed governing body for 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, Public 

Law 103–454. 

Intelligent transportation system (ITS) 

means electronics, photonics, 

communications, or information 

processing used singly or in 

combination to improve the efficiency 

or safety of a surface transportation 

system. 

Interim metropolitan transportation 

plan means a transportation plan 

composed of projects eligible to proceed 

under a conformity lapse and otherwise 

meeting all other applicable provisions 

of this part, including approval by the 

MPO. 

Interim transportation improvement 

program (TIP) means a TIP composed of 

projects eligible to proceed under a 

conformity lapse and otherwise meeting 

all other applicable provisions of this 

part, including approval by the MPO 

and the Governor. 

Long-range statewide transportation 

plan means the official, statewide, 

multimodal, transportation plan 

covering a period of no less than 20 

years developed through the statewide 

transportation planning process. 

Maintenance area means any 

geographic region of the United States 

that the EPA previously designated as a 

nonattainment area for one or more 

pollutants pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, and subsequently 

redesignated as an attainment area 

subject to the requirement to develop a 

maintenance plan under section 175A of 

the Clean Air Act, as amended. 

Management system means a 

systematic process, designed to assist 

decisionmakers in selecting cost 

effective strategies/actions to improve 

the efficiency or safety of, and protect 

the investment in the nation’s 

infrastructure. A management system 

can include: Identification of 

performance measures; data collection 

and analysis; determination of needs; 

evaluation and selection of appropriate 

strategies/actions to address the needs; 

and evaluation of the effectiveness of 

the implemented strategies/actions. 

Metropolitan planning area (MPA) 

means the geographic area determined 

by agreement between the metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) for the 

area and the Governor, in which the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process is carried out. 

Metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) means the policy board of an 

organization created and designated to 

carry out the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. 

Metropolitan transportation plan 

means the official multimodal 

transportation plan addressing no less 

than a 20-year planning horizon that is 

developed, adopted, and updated by the 

MPO through the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. 

National ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) means those standards 

established pursuant to section 109 of 

the Clean Air Act. 

Nonattainment area means any 

geographic region of the United States 

that has been designated by the EPA as 

a nonattainment area under section 107 

of the Clean Air Act for any pollutants 

for which an NAAQS exists. 

Non-metropolitan area means a 

geographic area outside a designated 

metropolitan planning area. 

Non-metropolitan local officials 

means elected and appointed officials of 

general purpose local government in a 

non-metropolitan area with 

responsibility for transportation. 

Obligated projects means strategies 

and projects funded under title 23 

U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for 

which the supporting Federal funds 

were authorized and committed by the 

State or designated recipient in the 

preceding program year, and authorized 

by the FHWA or awarded as a grant by 

the FTA. 

Operational and management 

strategies means actions and strategies 

aimed at improving the performance of 

existing and planned transportation 

facilities to relieve congestion and 

maximizing the safety and mobility of 

people and goods. 

Project construction grant agreement 

means an instrument that defines the 

scope of a project, the Federal financial 

contribution, and other terms and 

conditions for funding Small Starts 

projects as required by 49 U.S.C. 

5309(e)(7). 

Project selection means the 

procedures followed by MPOs, States, 

and public transportation operators to 

advance projects from the first four 

years of an approved TIP and/or STIP to 

implementation, in accordance with 

agreed upon procedures. 

Provider of freight transportation 

services means any entity that transports 

or otherwise facilitates the movement of 

goods from one location to another for 

others or for itself. 

Public transportation operator means 

the public entity which participates in 

the continuing, cooperative, and 

comprehensive transportation planning 

process in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 

134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 

5304, and is the designated recipient of 

Federal funds under title 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 53 for transportation by a 

conveyance that provides regular and 

continuing general or special 

transportation to the public, but does 

not include school bus, charter, or 

intercity bus transportation or intercity 

passenger rail transportation provided 

by Amtrak. 

Regional ITS architecture means a 

regional framework for ensuring 

institutional agreement and technical 

integration for the implementation of 

ITS projects or groups of projects. 

Regionally significant project means a 

transportation project (other than 

projects that may be grouped in the TIP 

and/or STIP or exempt projects as 

defined in EPA’s transportation 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7264 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93)) 

that is on a facility which serves 

regional transportation needs (such as 

access to and from the area outside the 

region; major activity centers in the 

region; major planned developments 

such as new retail malls, sports 

complexes, or employment centers; or 

transportation terminals) and would 

normally be included in the modeling of 

the metropolitan area’s transportation 

network. At a minimum, this includes 

all principal arterial highways and all 

fixed guideway transit facilities that 

offer a significant alternative to regional 

highway travel. 

Revision means a change to a longrange statewide or metropolitan 

transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that 

occurs between scheduled periodic 

updates. A major revision is an 

‘‘amendment,’’ while a minor revision is 

an ‘‘administrative modification.’’

State means any one of the fifty 

States, the District of Columbia, or 

Puerto Rico. 

State implementation plan (SIP) 

means, as defined in section 302(q) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), the portion (or 

portions) of the implementation plan, or 

most recent revision thereof, which has 

been approved under section 110 of the 

CAA, or promulgated under section 

110(c) of the CAA, or promulgated or 

approved pursuant to regulations 

promulgated under section 301(d) of the 

CAA and which implements the 

relevant requirements of the CAA. 

Statewide transportation 

improvement program (STIP) means a 

statewide prioritized listing/program of 

transportation projects covering a period 

of four years that is consistent with the 

long-range statewide transportation 

plan, metropolitan transportation plans, 

and TIPs, and required for projects to be 

eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. 

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

Strategic highway safety plan means a 

plan developed by the State DOT in 

accordance with the requirements of 23 

U.S.C. 148(a)(6). 

Transportation control measure 

(TCM) means any measure that is 

specifically identified and committed to 

in the applicable SIP that is either one 

of the types listed in section 108 of the 

Clean Air Act 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 that control the emissions 

from vehicles under fixed traffic 

conditions are not TCMs. 

Transportation improvement program 

(TIP) means a prioritized listing/ 

program of transportation projects 

covering a period of four years that is 

developed and formally adopted by an 

MPO as part of the metropolitan 

transportation planning process, 

consistent with the metropolitan 

transportation plan, and required for 

projects to be eligible for funding under 

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

Chapter 53. 

Transportation management area 

(TMA) means an urbanized area with a 

population over 200,000, as defined by 

the Bureau of the Census and designated 

by the Secretary of Transportation, or 

any additional area where TMA 

designation is requested by the 

Governor and the MPO and designated 

by the Secretary of Transportation. 

Unified planning work program 

(UPWP) means a statement of work 

identifying the planning priorities and 

activities to be carried out within a 

metropolitan planning area. At a 

minimum, a UPWP includes a 

description of the planning work and 

resulting products, who will perform 

the work, time frames for completing 

the work, the cost of the work, and the 

source(s) of funds. 

Update means making current a longrange statewide transportation plan, 

metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, 

or STIP through a comprehensive 

review. Updates require public review 

and comment, a 20-year horizon year for 

metropolitan transportation plans and 

long-range statewide transportation 

plans, a four-year program period for 

TIPs and STIPs, demonstration of fiscal 

constraint (except for long-range 

statewide transportation plans), and a 

conformity determination (for 

metropolitan transportation plans and 

TIPs in nonattainment and maintenance 

areas). 

Urbanized area means a geographic 

area with a population of 50,000 or 

more, as designated by the Bureau of the 

Census. 

Users of public transportation means 

any person, or groups representing such 

persons, who use transportation open to 

the general public, other than taxis and 

other privately funded and operated 

vehicles. 

Visualization techniques means 

methods used by States and MPOs in 

the development of transportation plans 

and programs with the public, elected 

and appointed officials, and other 

stakeholders in a clear and easily 

accessible format such as maps, 

pictures, and/or displays, to promote 

improved understanding of existing or 

proposed transportation plans and 

programs. 

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation 

Planning and Programming 

§ 450.200 Purpose. 

The purpose of this subpart is to 

implement the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 

135 and 49 U.S.C. 5304, as amended, 

which require each State to carry out a 

continuing, cooperative, and 

comprehensive statewide multimodal 

transportation planning process, 

including the development of a longrange statewide transportation plan and 

statewide transportation improvement 

program (STIP), that facilitates the safe 

and efficient management, operation, 

and development of surface 

transportation systems that will serve 

the mobility needs of people and freight 

(including accessible pedestrian 

walkways and bicycle transportation 

facilities) and that fosters economic 

growth and development within and 

between States and urbanized areas, 

while minimizing transportation-related 

fuel consumption and air pollution in 

all areas of the State, including those 

areas subject to the metropolitan 

transportation planning requirements of 

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

§ 450.202 Applicability. 

The provisions of this subpart are 

applicable to States and any other 

organizations or entities (e.g., 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) and public transportation 

operators) that are responsible for 

satisfying the requirements for 

transportation plans and programs 

throughout the State pursuant to 23 

U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5304. 

§ 450.204 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 subpart as so defined. 

§ 450.206 Scope of the statewide 

transportation planning process. 

(a) Each State shall carry out a 

continuing, cooperative, and 

comprehensive statewide transportation 

planning process that provides for 

consideration and implementation of 

projects, strategies, and services that 

will address the following factors: 

(1) Support the economic vitality of 

the United States, the States, 

metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan areas, especially by 

enabling global competitiveness, 

productivity, and efficiency; 

(2) Increase the safety of the 

transportation system for motorized and 

non-motorized users; 

(3) Increase the security of the 

transportation system for motorized and 

non-motorized users; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7265 

(4) Increase accessibility and mobility 

of people and freight; 

(5) Protect and enhance the 

environment, promote energy 

conservation, improve the quality of 

life, and promote consistency between 

transportation improvements and State 

and local planned growth and economic 

development patterns; 

(6) Enhance the integration and 

connectivity of the transportation 

system, across and between modes 

throughout the State, for people and 

freight; 

(7) Promote efficient system 

management and operation; and 

(8) Emphasize the preservation of the 

existing transportation system. 

(b) Consideration of the planning 

factors in paragraph (a) of this section 

shall be reflected, as appropriate, in the 

statewide transportation planning 

process. The degree of consideration 

and analysis of the factors should be 

based on the scale and complexity of 

many issues, including transportation 

systems development, land use, 

employment, economic development, 

human and natural environment, and 

housing and community development. 

(c) The failure to consider any factor 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

shall not be reviewable by any court 

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

53, subchapter II of title 5 U.S.C. 

Chapter 5, or title 5 U.S.C Chapter 7 in 

any matter affecting a long-range 

statewide transportation plan, STIP, 

project or strategy, or the statewide 

transportation planning process 

findings. 

(d) Funds provided under 23 U.S.C. 

505 and 49 U.S.C. 5305(e) are available 

to the State to accomplish activities in 

this subpart. At the State’s option, funds 

provided under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) and 

(3) and 105 and 49 U.S.C. 5307 may also 

be used. Statewide transportation 

planning activities performed with 

funds provided under title 23 U.S.C. 

and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 shall be 

documented in a statewide planning 

work program in accordance with the 

provisions of 23 CFR part 420. The work 

program should include a discussion of 

the transportation planning priorities 

facing the State. 

§ 450.208 Coordination of planning 

process activities. 

(a) In carrying out the statewide 

transportation planning process, each 

State shall, at a minimum: 

(1) Coordinate planning carried out 

under this subpart with the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

activities carried out under subpart C of 

this part for metropolitan areas of the 

State. The State is encouraged to rely on 

information, studies, or analyses 

provided by MPOs for portions of the 

transportation system located in 

metropolitan planning areas; 

(2) Coordinate planning carried out 

under this subpart with statewide trade 

and economic development planning 

activities and related multistate 

planning efforts; 

(3) Consider the concerns of Federal 

land management agencies that have 

jurisdiction over land within the 

boundaries of the State; 

(4) Consider the concerns of local 

elected and appointed officials with 

responsibilities for transportation in 

non-metropolitan areas; 

(5) Consider the concerns of Indian 

Tribal governments that have 

jurisdiction over land within the 

boundaries of the State; 

(6) Consider related planning 

activities being conducted outside of 

metropolitan planning areas and 

between States; and 

(7) Coordinate data collection and 

analyses with MPOs and public 

transportation operators to support 

statewide transportation planning and 

programming priorities and decisions. 

(b) The State air quality agency shall 

coordinate with the State department of 

transportation (State DOT) to develop 

the transportation portion of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) consistent 

with the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 

et seq.). 

(c) Two or more States may enter into 

agreements or compacts, not in conflict 

with any law of the United States, for 

cooperative efforts and mutual 

assistance in support of activities under 

this subpart related to interstate areas 

and localities in the States and 

establishing authorities the States 

consider desirable for making the 

agreements and compacts effective. The 

right to alter, amend, or repeal interstate 

compacts entered into under this part is 

expressly reserved. 

(d) States may use any one or more of 

the management systems (in whole or in 

part) described in 23 CFR part 500. 

(e) States may apply asset 

management principles and techniques 

in establishing planning goals, defining 

STIP priorities, and assessing 

transportation investment decisions, 

including transportation system safety, 

operations, preservation, and 

maintenance. 

(f) The statewide transportation 

planning process shall (to the maximum 

extent practicable) be consistent with 

the development of applicable regional 

intelligent transportation systems (ITS) 

architectures, as defined in 23 CFR part 

940. 

(g) Preparation of the coordinated 

public transit-human services 

transportation plan, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and 5317, should be 

coordinated and consistent with the 

statewide transportation planning 

process. 

(h) The statewide transportation 

planning process should be consistent 

with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 

as specified in 23 U.S.C. 148, and other 

transit safety and security planning and 

review processes, plans, and programs, 

as appropriate. 

§ 450.210 Interested parties, public 

involvement, and consultation. 

(a) In carrying out the statewide 

transportation planning process, 

including development of the longrange statewide transportation plan and 

the STIP, the State shall develop and 

use a documented public involvement 

process that provides opportunities for 

public review and comment at key 

decision points. 

(1) The State’s public involvement 

process at a minimum shall: 

(i) Establish early and continuous 

public involvement opportunities that 

provide timely information about 

transportation issues and 

decisionmaking processes to citizens, 

affected public agencies, representatives 

of public transportation employees, 

freight shippers, private providers of 

transportation, representatives of users 

of public transportation, representatives 

of users of pedestrian walkways and 

bicycle transportation facilities, 

representatives of the disabled, 

providers of freight transportation 

services, and other interested parties; 

(ii) Provide reasonable public access 

to technical and policy information 

used in the development of the longrange statewide transportation plan and 

the STIP; 

(iii) Provide adequate public notice of 

public involvement activities and time 

for public review and comment at key 

decision points, including but not 

limited to a reasonable opportunity to 

comment on the proposed long-range 

statewide transportation plan and STIP; 

(iv) To the maximum extent 

practicable, ensure that public meetings 

are held at convenient and accessible 

locations and times; 

(v) To the maximum extent 

practicable, use visualization techniques 

to describe the proposed long-range 

statewide transportation plan and 

supporting studies; 

(vi) To the maximum extent 

practicable, make public information 

available in electronically accessible 

format and means, such as the World 

Wide Web, as appropriate to afford 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7266 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

reasonable opportunity for 

consideration of public information; 

(vii) Demonstrate explicit 

consideration and response to public 

input during the development of the 

long-range statewide transportation plan 

and STIP; 

(viii) Include a process for seeking out 

and considering the needs of those 

traditionally underserved by existing 

transportation systems, such as lowincome and minority households, who 

may face challenges accessing 

employment and other services; and 

(ix) Provide for the periodic review of 

the effectiveness of the public 

involvement process to ensure that the 

process provides full and open access to 

all interested parties and revise the 

process, as appropriate. 

(2) The State shall provide for public 

comment on existing and proposed 

processes for public involvement in the 

development of the long-range statewide 

transportation plan and the STIP. At a 

minimum, the State shall allow 45 

calendar days for public review and 

written comment before the procedures 

and any major revisions to existing 

procedures are adopted. The State shall 

provide copies of the approved public 

involvement process document(s) to the 

FHWA and the FTA for informational 

purposes. 

(b) The State shall provide for nonmetropolitan local official participation 

in the development of the long-range 

statewide transportation plan and the 

STIP. The State shall have a 

documented process(es) for consulting 

with non-metropolitan local officials 

representing units of general purpose 

local government and/or local officials 

with responsibility for transportation 

that is separate and discrete from the 

public involvement process and 

provides an opportunity for their 

participation in the development of the 

long-range statewide transportation plan 

and the STIP. Although the FHWA and 

the FTA shall not review or approve this 

consultation process(es), copies of the 

process document(s) shall be provided 

to the FHWA and the FTA for 

informational purposes. 

(1) At least once every five years (as 

of February 24, 2006), the State shall 

review and solicit comments from nonmetropolitan local officials and other 

interested parties for a period of not less 

than 60 calendar days regarding the 

effectiveness of the consultation process 

and any proposed changes. A specific 

request for comments shall be directed 

to the State association of counties, 

State municipal league, regional 

planning agencies, or directly to nonmetropolitan local officials. 

(2) The State, at its discretion, shall be 

responsible for determining whether to 

adopt any proposed changes. If a 

proposed change is not adopted, the 

State shall make publicly available its 

reasons for not accepting the proposed 

change, including notification to nonmetropolitan local officials or their 

associations. 

(c) For each area of the State under 

the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal 

government, the State shall develop the 

long-range statewide transportation plan 

and STIP in consultation with the Tribal 

government and the Secretary of 

Interior. States shall, to the extent 

practicable, develop a documented 

process(es) that outlines roles, 

responsibilities, and key decision points 

for consulting with Indian Tribal 

governments and Federal land 

management agencies in the 

development of the long-range statewide 

transportation plan and the STIP. 

§ 450.212 Transportation planning studies 

and project development. 

(a) Pursuant to section 1308 of the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century, TEA–21 (Pub. L. 105–178), a 

State(s), MPO(s), or public 

transportation operator(s) may 

undertake a multimodal, systems-level 

corridor or subarea planning study as 

part of the statewide transportation 

planning process. To the extent 

practicable, development of these 

transportation planning studies shall 

involve consultation with, or joint 

efforts among, the State(s), MPO(s), and/ 

or public transportation operator(s). The 

results or decisions of these 

transportation planning studies may be 

used as part of the overall project 

development process consistent with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

and associated implementing 

regulations (23 CFR part 771 and 40 

CFR parts 1500–1508). Specifically, 

these corridor or subarea studies may 

result in producing any of the following 

for a proposed transportation project: 

(1) Purpose and need or goals and 

objective statement(s); 

(2) General travel corridor and/or 

general mode(s) definition (e.g., 

highway, transit, or a highway/transit 

combination); 

(3) Preliminary screening of 

alternatives and elimination of 

unreasonable alternatives; 

(4) Basic description of the 

environmental setting; and/or 

(5) Preliminary identification of 

environmental impacts and 

environmental mitigation. 

(b) Publicly available documents or 

other source material produced by, or in 

support of, the transportation planning 

process described in this subpart may be 

incorporated directly or by reference 

into subsequent NEPA documents, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21, if: 

(1) The NEPA lead agencies agree that 

such incorporation will aid in 

establishing or evaluating the purpose 

and need for the Federal action, 

reasonable alternatives, cumulative or 

other impacts on the human and natural 

environment, or mitigation of these 

impacts; and 

(2) The systems-level, corridor, or 

subarea planning study is conducted 

with: 

(i) Involvement of interested State, 

local, Tribal, and Federal agencies; 

(ii) Public review; 

(iii) Reasonable opportunity to 

comment during the statewide 

transportation planning process and 

development of the corridor or subarea 

planning study; 

(iv) Documentation of relevant 

decisions in a form that is identifiable 

and available for review during the 

NEPA scoping process and can be 

appended to or referenced in the NEPA 

document; and 

(v) The review of the FHWA and the 

FTA, as appropriate. 

(c) By agreement of the NEPA lead 

agencies, the above integration may be 

accomplished through tiering (as 

described in 40 CFR 1502.20), 

incorporating the subarea or corridor 

planning study into the draft 

Environmental Impact Statement or 

Environmental Assessment, or other 

means that the NEPA lead agencies 

deem appropriate. Additional 

information to further explain the 

linkages between the transportation 

planning and project development/ 

NEPA processes is contained in 

Appendix A to this part, including an 

explanation that is non-binding 

guidance material. 

§ 450.214 Development and content of the 

long-range statewide transportation plan. 

(a) The State shall develop a longrange statewide transportation plan, 

with a minimum 20-year forecast period 

at the time of adoption, that provides for 

the development and implementation of 

the multimodal transportation system 

for the State. The long-range statewide 

transportation plan shall consider and 

include, as applicable, elements and 

connections between public 

transportation, non-motorized modes, 

rail, commercial motor vehicle, 

waterway, and aviation facilities, 

particularly with respect to intercity 

travel. 

(b) The long-range statewide 

transportation plan should include 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7267 

capital, operations and management 

strategies, investments, procedures, and 

other measures to ensure the 

preservation and most efficient use of 

the existing transportation system. The 

long-range statewide transportation plan 

may consider projects and strategies that 

address areas or corridors where current 

or projected congestion threatens the 

efficient functioning of key elements of 

the State’s transportation system. 

(c) The long-range statewide 

transportation plan shall reference, 

summarize, or contain any applicable 

short-range planning studies; strategic 

planning and/or policy studies; 

transportation needs studies; 

management systems reports; 

emergency relief and disaster 

preparedness plans; and any statements 

of policies, goals, and objectives on 

issues (e.g., transportation, safety, 

economic development, social and 

environmental effects, or energy) that 

were relevant to the development of the 

long-range statewide transportation 

plan. 

(d) The long-range statewide 

transportation plan should include a 

safety element that incorporates or 

summarizes the priorities, goals, 

countermeasures, or projects contained 

in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

required by 23 U.S.C. 148. 

(e) The long-range statewide 

transportation plan should include a 

security element that incorporates or 

summarizes the priorities, goals, or 

projects set forth in other transit safety 

and security planning and review 

processes, plans, and programs, as 

appropriate. 

(f) Within each metropolitan area of 

the State, the long-range statewide 

transportation plan shall be developed 

in cooperation with the affected MPOs. 

(g) For non-metropolitan areas, the 

long-range statewide transportation plan 

shall be developed in consultation with 

affected non-metropolitan officials with 

responsibility for transportation using 

the State’s consultation process(es) 

established under § 450.210(b). 

(h) For each area of the State under 

the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal 

government, the long-range statewide 

transportation plan shall be developed 

in consultation with the Tribal 

government and the Secretary of the 

Interior consistent with § 450.210(c). 

(i) The long-range statewide 

transportation plan shall be developed, 

as appropriate, in consultation with 

State, Tribal, and local agencies 

responsible for land use management, 

natural resources, environmental 

protection, conservation, and historic 

preservation. This consultation shall 

involve comparison of transportation 

plans to State and Tribal conservation 

plans or maps, if available, and 

comparison of transportation plans to 

inventories of natural or historic 

resources, if available. 

(j) A long-range statewide 

transportation plan shall include a 

discussion of potential environmental 

mitigation activities and potential areas 

to carry out these activities, including 

activities that may have the greatest 

potential to restore and maintain the 

environmental functions affected by the 

long-range statewide transportation 

plan. The discussion may focus on 

policies, programs, or strategies, rather 

than at the project level. The discussion 

shall be developed in consultation with 

Federal, State, and Tribal land 

management, wildlife, and regulatory 

agencies. The State may establish 

reasonable timeframes for performing 

this consultation. 

(k) In developing and updating the 

long-range statewide transportation 

plan, the State shall provide citizens, 

affected public agencies, representatives 

of public transportation employees, 

freight shippers, private providers of 

transportation, representatives of users 

of public transportation, representatives 

of users of pedestrian walkways and 

bicycle transportation facilities, 

representatives of the disabled, 

providers of freight transportation 

services, and other interested parties 

with a reasonable opportunity to 

comment on the proposed long-range 

statewide transportation plan. In 

carrying out these requirements, the 

State shall, to the maximum extent 

practicable, utilize the public 

involvement process described under 

§ 450.210(a). 

(l) The long-range statewide 

transportation plan may (but is not 

required to) include a financial plan that 

demonstrates how the adopted longrange statewide transportation plan can 

be implemented, indicates resources 

from public and private sources that are 

reasonably expected to be made 

available to carry out the plan, and 

recommends any additional financing 

strategies for needed projects and 

programs. In addition, for illustrative 

purposes, the financial plan may (but is 

not required to) include additional 

projects that would be included in the 

adopted long-range statewide 

transportation plan if additional 

resources beyond those identified in the 

financial plan were to become available. 

(m) The State shall not be required to 

select any project from the illustrative 

list of additional projects included in 

the financial plan described in 

paragraph (l) of this section. 

(n) The long-range statewide 

transportation plan shall be published 

or otherwise made available, including 

(to the maximum extent practicable) in 

electronically accessible formats and 

means, such as the World Wide Web, as 

described in § 450.210(a). 

(o) The State shall continually 

evaluate, revise, and periodically update 

the long-range statewide transportation 

plan, as appropriate, using the 

procedures in this section for 

development and establishment of the 

long-range statewide transportation 

plan. 

(p) Copies of any new or amended 

long-range statewide transportation plan 

documents shall be provided to the 

FHWA and the FTA for informational 

purposes. 

§ 450.216 Development and content of the 

statewide transportation improvement 

program (STIP). 

(a) The State shall develop a statewide 

transportation improvement program 

(STIP) for all areas of the State. The 

STIP shall cover a period of no less than 

four years and be updated at least every 

four years, or more frequently if the 

Governor elects a more frequent update 

cycle. However, if the STIP covers more 

than four years, the FHWA and the FTA 

will consider the projects in the 

additional years as informational. In 

case of difficulties developing a portion 

of the STIP for a particular area (e.g., 

metropolitan planning area, 

nonattainment or maintenance area, or 

Indian Tribal lands), a partial STIP 

covering the rest of the State may be 

developed. 

(b) For each metropolitan area in the 

State, the STIP shall be developed in 

cooperation with the MPO designated 

for the metropolitan area. Each 

metropolitan transportation 

improvement program (TIP) shall be 

included without change in the STIP, 

directly or by reference, after approval 

of the TIP by the MPO and the 

Governor. A metropolitan TIP in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area is 

subject to a FHWA/FTA conformity 

finding before inclusion in the STIP. In 

areas outside a metropolitan planning 

area but within an air quality 

nonattainment or maintenance area 

containing any part of a metropolitan 

area, projects must be included in the 

regional emissions analysis that 

supported the conformity determination 

of the associated metropolitan TIP 

before they are added to the STIP. 

(c) For each non-metropolitan area in 

the State, the STIP shall be developed 

in consultation with affected nonmetropolitan local officials with 

responsibility for transportation using 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7268 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the State’s consultation process(es) 

established under § 450.210. 

(d) For each area of the State under 

the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal 

government, the STIP shall be 

developed in consultation with the 

Tribal government and the Secretary of 

the Interior. 

(e) Federal Lands Highway program 

TIPs shall be included without change 

in the STIP, directly or by reference, 

once approved by the FHWA pursuant 

to 23 U.S.C. 204(a) or (j). 

(f) The Governor shall provide all 

interested parties with a reasonable 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed STIP as required by 

§ 450.210(a). 

(g) The STIP shall include capital and 

non-capital surface transportation 

projects (or phases of projects) within 

the boundaries of the State proposed for 

funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 (including 

transportation enhancements; Federal 

Lands Highway program projects; safety 

projects included in the State’s Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan; trails projects; 

pedestrian walkways; and bicycle 

facilities), except the following that may 

(but are not required to) be included: 

(1) Safety projects funded under 23 

U.S.C. 402 and 49 U.S.C. 31102; 

(2) Metropolitan planning projects 

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

5305(d), and 49 U.S.C. 5339; 

(3) State planning and research 

projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 505 and 

49 U.S.C. 5305(e); 

(4) At the State’s discretion, State 

planning and research projects funded 

with National Highway System, Surface 

Transportation Program, and/or Equity 

Bonus funds; 

(5) Emergency relief projects (except 

those involving substantial functional, 

locational, or capacity changes); 

(6) National planning and research 

projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 5314; 

and 

(7) Project management oversight 

projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 5327. 

(h) The STIP shall contain all 

regionally significant projects requiring 

an action by the FHWA or the FTA 

whether or not the projects are to be 

funded with 23 U.S.C. Chapters 1 and 

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

(e.g., addition of an interchange to the 

Interstate System with State, local, and/ 

or private funds, and congressionally 

designated projects not funded under 

title 23 U.S.C. or title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 

53). For informational and conformity 

purposes, the STIP shall include (if 

appropriate and included in any TIPs) 

all regionally significant projects 

proposed to be funded with Federal 

funds other than those administered by 

the FHWA or the FTA, as well as all 

regionally significant projects to be 

funded with non-Federal funds. 

(i) The STIP shall include for each 

project or phase (e.g., preliminary 

engineering, environment/NEPA, rightof-way, design, or construction) the 

following: 

(1) Sufficient descriptive material 

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

to identify the project or phase; 

(2) Estimated total project cost, or a 

project cost range, which may extend 

beyond the four years of the STIP; 

(3) The amount of Federal funds 

proposed to be obligated during each 

program year (for the first year, this 

includes the proposed category of 

Federal funds and source(s) of nonFederal funds. For the second, third, 

and fourth years, this includes the likely 

category or possible categories of 

Federal funds and sources of nonFederal funds); and 

(4) Identification of the agencies 

responsible for carrying out the project 

or phase. 

(j) 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 

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

93. In nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, project classifications must be 

consistent with the ‘‘exempt project’’

classifications contained in the EPA’s 

transportation conformity regulation (40 

CFR part 93). In addition, projects 

proposed for funding under title 23 

U.S.C. Chapter 2 that are not regionally 

significant may be grouped in one line 

item or identified individually in the 

STIP. 

(k) Each project or project phase 

included in the STIP shall be consistent 

with the long-range statewide 

transportation plan developed under 

§ 450.214 and, in metropolitan planning 

areas, consistent with an approved 

metropolitan transportation plan 

developed under § 450.322. 

(l) The STIP may include a financial 

plan that demonstrates how the 

approved STIP can be implemented, 

indicates resources from public and 

private sources that are reasonably 

expected to be made available to carry 

out the STIP, and recommends any 

additional financing strategies for 

needed projects and programs. In 

addition, for illustrative purposes, the 

financial plan may (but is not required 

to) include additional projects that 

would be included in the adopted STIP 

if reasonable additional resources 

beyond those identified in the financial 

plan were to become 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 FHWA and the FTA on the STIP. 

Starting December 11, 2007, revenue 

and cost estimates for the STIP must use 

an inflation rate(s) to reflect ‘‘year of 

expenditure dollars,’’ based on 

reasonable financial principles and 

information, developed cooperatively by 

the State, MPOs, and public 

transportation operators. 

(m) The STIP shall include 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. In nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, projects included in 

the first two years of the STIP shall be 

limited to those for which funds are 

available or committed. Financial 

constraint of the STIP shall be 

demonstrated and maintained by year 

and shall include sufficient financial 

information to demonstrate which 

projects are to be implemented using 

current and/or reasonably available 

revenues, while federally-supported 

facilities are being adequately operated 

and maintained. In the case of proposed 

funding sources, strategies for ensuring 

their availability shall be identified in 

the financial plan consistent with 

paragraph (l) of this section. For 

purposes of transportation operations 

and maintenance, the STIP shall include 

financial information containing 

system-level estimates of costs and 

revenue sources that are reasonably 

expected to be available to adequately 

operate and maintain Federal-aid 

highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 

101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as 

defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). 

(n) Projects in any of the first four 

years of the STIP may be advanced in 

place of another project in the first four 

years of the STIP, subject to the project 

selection requirements of § 450.220. In 

addition, the STIP may be revised at any 

time under procedures agreed to by the 

State, MPO(s), and public transportation 

operator(s) consistent with the STIP 

development procedures established in 

this section, as well as the procedures 

for participation by interested parties 

(see § 450.210(a)), subject to FHWA/ 

FTA approval (see § 450.218). Changes 

that affect fiscal constraint must take 

place by amendment of the STIP. 

(o) In cases that the FHWA and the 

FTA find a STIP to be fiscally 

constrained and a revenue source is 

subsequently removed or substantially 

reduced (i.e., by legislative or 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7269 

administrative actions), the FHWA and 

the FTA will not withdraw the original 

determination of fiscal constraint. 

However, in such cases, the FHWA and 

the FTA will not act on an updated or 

amended STIP that does not reflect the 

changed revenue situation. 

§ 450.218 Self-certifications, Federal 

findings, and Federal approvals. 

(a) At least every four years, the State 

shall submit an updated STIP 

concurrently to the FHWA and the FTA 

for joint approval. STIP amendments 

shall also be submitted to the FHWA 

and the FTA for joint approval. At the 

time the entire proposed STIP or STIP 

amendments are submitted 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 and 5304, and this part; 

(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d–1) 

and 49 CFR part 21; 

(3) 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, creed, national origin, sex, or age 

in employment or business opportunity; 

(4) Section 1101(b) of the SAFETEA–

LU (Pub. L. 109–59) and 49 CFR part 26 

regarding the involvement of 

disadvantaged business enterprises in 

USDOT funded projects; 

(5) 23 CFR part 230, regarding 

implementation of an equal 

employment opportunity program on 

Federal and Federal-aid highway 

construction contracts; 

(6) The provisions of the Americans 

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

12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, 

and 38; 

(7) 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 40 CFR part 93; 

(8) The Older Americans Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of age in 

programs or activities receiving Federal 

financial assistance; 

(9) Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C., 

regarding the prohibition of 

discrimination based on gender; and 

(10) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 CFR 

part 27 regarding discrimination against 

individuals with disabilities. 

(b) The FHWA and the FTA shall 

review the STIP or the amended STIP, 

and make a joint finding on the extent 

to which the STIP is based on a 

statewide transportation planning 

process that meets or substantially 

meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 

and 135, 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and 

subparts A, B, and C of this part. 

Approval of the STIP by the FHWA and 

the FTA, in its entirety or in part, will 

be based upon the results of this joint 

finding. 

(1) If the FHWA and the FTA 

determine that the STIP or amended 

STIP is based on a statewide 

transportation planning process that 

meets or substantially meets the 

requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135, 49 U.S.C. 

5304, and this part, the FHWA and the 

FTA may jointly: 

(i) Approve the entire STIP; 

(ii) Approve the STIP subject to 

certain corrective actions being taken; or 

(iii) Under special circumstances, 

approve a partial STIP covering only a 

portion of the State. 

(2) If the FHWA and the FTA jointly 

determine and document in the 

planning finding that a submitted STIP 

or amended STIP does not substantially 

meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135, 

49 U.S.C. 5304, and this part for any 

identified categories of projects, the 

FHWA and the FTA will not approve 

the STIP. 

(c) The approval period for a new or 

amended STIP shall not exceed four 

years. If a State demonstrates, in 

writing, that extenuating circumstances 

will delay the submittal of a new or 

amended STIP past its update deadline, 

the FHWA and the FTA will consider 

and take appropriate action on a request 

to extend the approval beyond four 

years for all or part of the STIP for a 

period not to exceed 180 calendar days. 

In these cases, priority consideration 

will be given to projects and strategies 

involving the operation and 

management of the multimodal 

transportation system. Where the 

request involves projects in a 

metropolitan planning area(s), the 

affected MPO(s) must concur in the 

request. If the delay was due to the 

development and approval of a 

metropolitan TIP(s), the affected MPO(s) 

must provide supporting information, in 

writing, for the request. 

(d) Where necessary in order to 

maintain or establish highway and 

transit operations, the FHWA and the 

FTA may approve operating assistance 

for specific projects or programs, even 

though the projects or programs may not 

be included in an approved STIP. 

§ 450.220 Project selection from the STIP. 

(a) Except as provided in § 450.216(g) 

and § 450.218(d), only projects in a 

FHWA/FTA approved STIP shall be 

eligible for funds administered by the 

FHWA or the FTA. 

(b) In metropolitan planning areas, 

transportation projects proposed for 

funds administered by the FHWA or the 

FTA shall be selected from the approved 

STIP in accordance with project 

selection procedures provided in 

§ 450.330. 

(c) In non-metropolitan areas, 

transportation projects undertaken on 

the National Highway System, under the 

Bridge and Interstate Maintenance 

programs in title 23 U.S.C. and under 

sections 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 of 

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

selected from the approved STIP by the 

State in consultation with the affected 

non-metropolitan local officials with 

responsibility for transportation. 

(d) Federal Lands Highway program 

projects shall be selected from the 

approved STIP in accordance with the 

procedures developed pursuant to 23 

U.S.C. 204. 

(e) 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) through (d) of this 

section is required for the implementing 

agency to proceed with these projects. If 

Federal funds available are significantly 

less than the authorized amounts, or 

where there is significant shifting of 

projects among years, § 450.330(a) 

provides for a revised list of ‘‘agreed to’’

projects to be developed upon the 

request of the State, MPO, or public 

transportation operator(s). If an 

implementing agency wishes to proceed 

with a project in the second, third, or 

fourth year of the STIP, the procedures 

in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section or expedited procedures that 

provide for the advancement of projects 

from the second, third, or fourth years 

of the STIP may be used, if agreed to by 

all parties involved in the selection 

process. 

§ 450.222 Applicability of NEPA to 

statewide transportation plans and 

programs. 

Any decision by the Secretary 

concerning a long-range statewide 

transportation plan or STIP developed 

through the processes provided for in 23 

U.S.C. 135, 49 U.S.C. 5304, and this 

subpart shall not be considered to be a 

Federal action subject to review under 

NEPA. 

§ 450.224 Phase-in of new requirements. 

(a) Long-range statewide 

transportation plans and STIPs adopted 

or approved prior to July 1, 2007 may 

be developed using the TEA–21 

requirements or the provisions and 

requirements of this part. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7270 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) For STIPs that are developed 

under TEA–21 requirements prior to 

July 1, 2007, the FHWA/FTA action 

(i.e., STIP approval) must be completed 

no later than June 30, 2007. For longrange statewide transportation plans 

that are completed under TEA–21 

requirements prior to July 1, 2007, the 

State adoption action must be 

completed no later than June 30, 2007. 

If these actions are completed on or after 

July 1, 2007, the provisions and 

requirements of this part shall take 

effect, regardless of when the long-range 

statewide transportation plan or the 

STIP were developed. 

(c) The applicable action (see 

paragraph (b) of this section) on any 

amendments or updates to STIPs or 

long-range statewide transportation 

plans on or after July 1, 2007, shall be 

based on the provisions and 

requirements of this part. However, 

administrative modifications may be 

made to the STIP on or after July 1, 2007 

in the absence of meeting the provisions 

and requirements of this part. 

Subpart C—Metropolitan 

Transportation Planning and 

Programming 

§ 450.300 Purpose. 

The purposes of this subpart are to 

implement the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 

134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303, as amended, 

which: 

(a) Sets forth the national policy that 

the MPO designated for each urbanized 

area is to carry out a continuing, 

cooperative, and comprehensive 

multimodal transportation planning 

process, including the development of a 

metropolitan transportation plan and a 

transportation improvement program 

(TIP), that encourages and promotes the 

safe and efficient development, 

management, and operation of surface 

transportation systems to serve the 

mobility needs of people and freight 

(including accessible pedestrian 

walkways and bicycle transportation 

facilities) and foster economic growth 

and development, while minimizing 

transportation-related fuel consumption 

and air pollution; and 

(b) Encourages continued 

development and improvement of 

metropolitan transportation planning 

processes guided by the planning factors 

set forth in 23 U.S.C. 134(h) and 49 

U.S.C. 5303(h). 

§ 450.302 Applicability. 

The provisions of this subpart are 

applicable to organizations and entities 

responsible for the transportation 

planning and programming processes in 

metropolitan planning areas. 

§ 450.304 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 subpart as so defined. 

§ 450.306 Scope of the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. 

(a) The metropolitan transportation 

planning process shall be continuous, 

cooperative, and comprehensive, and 

provide for consideration and 

implementation of projects, strategies, 

and services that will address the 

following factors: 

(1) Support the economic vitality of 

the metropolitan area, especially by 

enabling global competitiveness, 

productivity, and efficiency; 

(2) Increase the safety of the 

transportation system for motorized and 

non-motorized users; 

(3) Increase the security of the 

transportation system for motorized and 

non-motorized users; 

(4) Increase accessibility and mobility 

of people and freight; 

(5) Protect and enhance the 

environment, promote energy 

conservation, improve the quality of 

life, and promote consistency between 

transportation improvements and State 

and local planned growth and economic 

development patterns; 

(6) Enhance the integration and 

connectivity of the transportation 

system, across and between modes, for 

people and freight; 

(7) Promote efficient system 

management and operation; and 

(8) Emphasize the preservation of the 

existing transportation system. 

(b) Consideration of the planning 

factors in paragraph (a) of this section 

shall be reflected, as appropriate, in the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process. The degree of consideration 

and analysis of the factors should be 

based on the scale and complexity of 

many issues, including transportation 

system development, land use, 

employment, economic development, 

human and natural environment, and 

housing and community development. 

(c) The failure to consider any factor 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

shall not be reviewable by any court 

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

53, subchapter II of title 5, U.S.C. 

Chapter 5, or title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 7 in 

any matter affecting a metropolitan 

transportation plan, TIP, a project or 

strategy, or the certification of a 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process. 

(d) The metropolitan transportation 

planning process shall be carried out in 

coordination with the statewide 

transportation planning process 

required by 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 

5304. 

(e) In carrying out the metropolitan 

transportation planning process, MPOs, 

States, and public transportation 

operators may apply asset management 

principles and techniques in 

establishing planning goals, defining 

TIP priorities, and assessing 

transportation investment decisions, 

including transportation system safety, 

operations, preservation, and 

maintenance, as well as strategies and 

policies to support homeland security 

and to safeguard the personal security of 

all motorized and non-motorized users. 

(f) The metropolitan transportation 

planning process shall (to the maximum 

extent practicable) be consistent with 

the development of applicable regional 

intelligent transportation systems (ITS) 

architectures, as defined in 23 CFR part 

940. 

(g) Preparation of the coordinated 

public transit-human services 

transportation plan, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and 5317, should be 

coordinated and consistent with the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process. 

(h) The metropolitan transportation 

planning process should be consistent 

with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 

as specified in 23 U.S.C. 148, and other 

transit safety and security planning and 

review processes, plans, and programs, 

as appropriate. 

(i) The FHWA and the FTA shall 

designate as a transportation 

management area (TMA) each urbanized 

area with a population of over 200,000 

individuals, as defined by the Bureau of 

the Census. The FHWA and the FTA 

shall also designate any additional 

urbanized area as a TMA on the request 

of the Governor and the MPO 

designated for that area. 

(j) In an urbanized area not designated 

as a TMA that is an air quality 

attainment area, the MPO(s) may 

propose and submit to the FHWA and 

the FTA for approval a procedure for 

developing an abbreviated metropolitan 

transportation plan and TIP. In 

developing proposed simplified 

planning procedures, consideration 

shall be given to whether the 

abbreviated metropolitan transportation 

plan and TIP will achieve the purposes 

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

these regulations, taking into account 

the complexity of the transportation 

problems in the area. The simplified 

procedures shall be developed by the 

MPO in cooperation with the State(s) 

and public transportation operator(s). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7271 

§ 450.308 Funding for transportation 

planning and unified planning work 

programs. 

(a) Funds provided under 23 U.S.C. 

104(f), 49 U.S.C. 5305(d), 49 U.S.C. 

5307, and 49 U.S.C. 5339 are available 

to MPOs to accomplish activities in this 

subpart. At the State’s option, funds 

provided under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) and 

(b)(3) and 23 U.S.C. 105 may also be 

provided to MPOs for metropolitan 

transportation planning. In addition, an 

MPO serving an urbanized area with a 

population over 200,000, as designated 

by the Bureau of the Census, may at its 

discretion use funds sub-allocated 

under 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(E) for 

metropolitan transportation planning 

activities. 

(b) Metropolitan transportation 

planning activities performed with 

funds provided under title 23 U.S.C. 

and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 shall be 

documented in a unified planning work 

program (UPWP) or simplified 

statement of work in accordance with 

the provisions of this section and 23 

CFR part 420. 

(c) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d) of this section, each MPO, in 

cooperation with the State(s) and public 

transportation operator(s), shall develop 

a UPWP that includes a discussion of 

the planning priorities facing the MPA. 

The UPWP shall identify work proposed 

for the next one- or two-year period by 

major activity and task (including 

activities that address the planning 

factors in § 450.306(a)), in sufficient 

detail to indicate who (e.g., MPO, State, 

public transportation operator, local 

government, or consultant) will perform 

the work, the schedule for completing 

the work, the resulting products, the 

proposed funding by activity/task, and a 

summary of the total amounts and 

sources of Federal and matching funds. 

(d) With the prior approval of the 

State and the FHWA and the FTA, an 

MPO in an area not designated as a 

TMA may prepare a simplified 

statement of work, in cooperation with 

the State(s) and the public 

transportation operator(s), in lieu of a 

UPWP. A simplified statement of work 

would include a description of the 

major activities to be performed during 

the next one- or two-year period, who 

(e.g., State, MPO, public transportation 

operator, local government, or 

consultant) will perform the work, the 

resulting products, and a summary of 

the total amounts and sources of Federal 

and matching funds. If a simplified 

statement of work is used, it may be 

submitted as part of the State’s planning 

work program, in accordance with 23 

CFR part 420. 

(e) Arrangements may be made with 

the FHWA and the FTA to combine the 

UPWP or simplified statement of work 

with the work program(s) for other 

Federal planning funds. 

(f) Administrative requirements for 

UPWPs and simplified statements of 

work are contained in 23 CFR part 420 

and FTA Circular C8100.1B (Program 

Guidance and Application Instructions 

for Metropolitan Planning Grants). 

§ 450.310 Metropolitan planning 

organization designation and redesignation. 

(a) To carry out the metropolitan 

transportation planning process under 

this subpart, a metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) shall be designated 

for each urbanized area with a 

population of more than 50,000 

individuals (as determined by the 

Bureau of the Census). 

(b) MPO designation shall be made by 

agreement between the Governor and 

units of general purpose local 

government that together represent at 

least 75 percent of the affected 

population (including the largest 

incorporated city, based on population, 

as named by the Bureau of the Census) 

or in accordance with procedures 

established by applicable State or local 

law. 

(c) Each Governor with responsibility 

for a portion of a multistate 

metropolitan area and the appropriate 

MPOs shall, to the extent practicable, 

provide coordinated transportation 

planning for the entire MPA. The 

consent of Congress is granted to any 

two or more States to: 

(1) Enter into agreements or compacts, 

not in conflict with any law of the 

United States, for cooperative efforts 

and mutual assistance in support of 

activities authorized under 23 U.S.C. 

134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 as the activities 

pertain to interstate areas and localities 

within the States; and 

(2) Establish such agencies, joint or 

otherwise, as the States may determine 

desirable for making the agreements and 

compacts effective. 

(d) Each MPO that serves a TMA, 

when designated or redesignated under 

this section, shall consist of local 

elected officials, officials of public 

agencies that administer or operate 

major modes of transportation in the 

metropolitan planning area, and 

appropriate State transportation 

officials. Where appropriate, MPOs may 

increase the representation of local 

elected officials, public transportation 

agencies, or appropriate State officials 

on their policy boards and other 

committees as a means for encouraging 

greater involvement in the metropolitan 

transportation planning process, subject 

to the requirements of paragraph (k) of 

this section. 

(e) To the extent possible, only one 

MPO shall be designated for each 

urbanized area or group of contiguous 

urbanized areas. More than one MPO 

may be designated to serve an urbanized 

area only if the Governor(s) and the 

existing MPO, if applicable, determine 

that the size and complexity of the 

urbanized area make designation of 

more than one MPO appropriate. In 

those cases where two or more MPOs 

serve the same urbanized area, the 

MPOs shall establish official, written 

agreements that clearly identify areas of 

coordination and the division of 

transportation planning responsibilities 

among the MPOs. 

(f) Nothing in this subpart shall be 

deemed to prohibit an MPO from using 

the staff resources of other agencies, 

non-profit organizations, or contractors 

to carry out selected elements of the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process. 

(g) An MPO designation shall remain 

in effect until an official redesignation 

has been made in accordance with this 

section. 

(h) An existing MPO may be 

redesignated only by agreement between 

the Governor and units of general 

purpose local government that together 

represent at least 75 percent of the 

existing metropolitan planning area 

population (including the largest 

incorporated city, based on population, 

as named by the Bureau of the Census). 

(i) Redesignation of an MPO serving a 

multistate metropolitan planning area 

requires agreement between the 

Governors of each State served by the 

existing MPO and units of general 

purpose local government that together 

represent at least 75 percent of the 

existing metropolitan planning area 

population (including the largest 

incorporated city, based on population, 

as named by the Bureau of the Census). 

(j) For the purposes of redesignation, 

units of general purpose local 

government may be defined as elected 

officials from each unit of general 

purpose local government located 

within the metropolitan planning area 

served by the existing MPO. 

(k) Redesignation of an MPO (in 

accordance with the provisions of this 

section) is required whenever the 

existing MPO proposes to make: 

(1) A substantial change in the 

proportion of voting members on the 

existing MPO representing the largest 

incorporated city, other units of general 

purpose local government served by the 

MPO, and the State(s); or 

(2) A substantial change in the 

decisionmaking authority or 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7272 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibility of the MPO, or in 

decisionmaking procedures established 

under MPO by-laws. 

(l) The following changes to an MPO 

do not require a redesignation (as long 

as they do not trigger a substantial 

change as described in paragraph (k) of 

the section): 

(1) The identification of a new 

urbanized area (as determined by the 

Bureau of the Census) within an existing 

metropolitan planning area; 

(2) Adding members to the MPO that 

represent new units of general purpose 

local government resulting from 

expansion of the metropolitan planning 

area; 

(3) Adding members to satisfy the 

specific membership requirements for 

an MPO that serves a TMA; or 

(4) Periodic rotation of members 

representing units of general-purpose 

local government, as established under 

MPO by-laws. 

§ 450.312 Metropolitan planning area 

boundaries. 

(a) The boundaries of a metropolitan 

planning area (MPA) shall be 

determined by agreement between the 

MPO and the Governor. At a minimum, 

the MPA boundaries shall encompass 

the entire existing urbanized area (as 

defined by the Bureau of the Census) 

plus the contiguous area expected to 

become urbanized within a 20-year 

forecast period for the metropolitan 

transportation plan. The MPA 

boundaries may be further expanded to 

encompass the entire metropolitan 

statistical area or combined statistical 

area, as defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

(b) An MPO that serves an urbanized 

area designated as a nonattainment area 

for ozone or carbon monoxide under the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 

as of August 10, 2005, shall retain the 

MPA boundary that existed on August 

10, 2005. The MPA boundaries for such 

MPOs may only be adjusted by 

agreement of the Governor and the 

affected MPO in accordance with the 

redesignation procedures described in 

§ 450.310(h). The MPA boundary for an 

MPO that serves an urbanized area 

designated as a nonattainment area for 

ozone or carbon monoxide under the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 

after August 10, 2005 may be 

established to coincide with the 

designated boundaries of the ozone and/ 

or carbon monoxide nonattainment area, 

in accordance with the requirements in 

§ 450.310(b). 

(c) An MPA boundary may encompass 

more than one urbanized area. 

(d) MPA boundaries may be 

established to coincide with the 

geography of regional economic 

development and growth forecasting 

areas. 

(e) Identification of new urbanized 

areas within an existing metropolitan 

planning area by the Bureau of the 

Census shall not require redesignation 

of the existing MPO. 

(f) Where the boundaries of the 

urbanized area or MPA extend across 

two or more States, the Governors with 

responsibility for a portion of the 

multistate area, MPO(s), and the public 

transportation operator(s) are strongly 

encouraged to coordinate transportation 

planning for the entire multistate area. 

(g) The MPA boundaries shall not 

overlap with each other. 

(h) Where part of an urbanized area 

served by one MPO extends into an 

adjacent MPA, the MPOs shall, at a 

minimum, establish written agreements 

that clearly identify areas of 

coordination and the division of 

transportation planning responsibilities 

among and between the MPOs. 

Alternatively, the MPOs may adjust 

their existing boundaries so that the 

entire urbanized area lies within only 

one MPA. Boundary adjustments that 

change the composition of the MPO may 

require redesignation of one or more 

such MPOs. 

(i) The MPA boundaries shall be 

reviewed after each Census by the MPO 

(in cooperation with the State and 

public transportation operator(s)) to 

determine if existing MPA boundaries 

meet the minimum statutory 

requirements for new and updated 

urbanized area(s), and shall be adjusted 

as necessary. As appropriate, additional 

adjustments should be made to reflect 

the most comprehensive boundary to 

foster an effective planning process that 

ensures connectivity between modes, 

reduces access disadvantages 

experienced by modal systems, and 

promotes efficient overall transportation 

investment strategies. 

(j) Following MPA boundary approval 

by the MPO and the Governor, the MPA 

boundary descriptions shall be provided 

for informational purposes to the FHWA 

and the FTA. The MPA boundary 

descriptions shall be submitted either as 

a geo-spatial database or described in 

sufficient detail to enable the 

boundaries to be accurately delineated 

on a map. 

§ 450.314 Metropolitan planning 

agreements. 

(a) The MPO, the State(s), and the 

public transportation operator(s) shall 

cooperatively determine their mutual 

responsibilities in carrying out the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process. These responsibilities shall be 

clearly identified in written agreements 

among the MPO, the State(s), and the 

public transportation operator(s) serving 

the MPA. To the extent possible, a 

single agreement between all 

responsible parties should be 

developed. The written agreement(s) 

shall include specific provisions for 

cooperatively developing and sharing 

information related to the development 

of financial plans that support the 

metropolitan transportation plan (see 

§ 450.322) and the metropolitan TIP (see 

§ 450.324) and development of the 

annual listing of obligated projects (see 

§ 450.332). 

(b) If the MPA does not include the 

entire nonattainment or maintenance 

area, there shall be a written 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 MPA within the 

nonattainment or maintenance area. The 

agreement must also indicate how the 

total transportation-related emissions 

for the nonattainment or maintenance 

area, including areas outside the MPA, 

will be treated for the purposes of 

determining conformity in accordance 

with the EPA’s transportation 

conformity rule (40 CFR part 93). The 

agreement shall address policy 

mechanisms for resolving conflicts 

concerning transportation-related 

emissions that may arise between the 

MPA and the portion of the 

nonattainment or maintenance area 

outside the MPA. 

(c) In nonattainment or maintenance 

areas, if the MPO is not the designated 

agency for air quality planning under 

section 174 of the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7504), there shall be a written 

agreement between the MPO and the 

designated air quality planning agency 

describing their respective roles and 

responsibilities for air quality related 

transportation planning. 

(d) If more than one MPO has been 

designated to serve an urbanized area, 

there shall be a written agreement 

among the MPOs, the State(s), and the 

public transportation operator(s) 

describing how the metropolitan 

transportation planning processes will 

be coordinated to assure the 

development of consistent metropolitan 

transportation plans and TIPs across the 

MPA boundaries, particularly in cases 

in which a proposed transportation 

investment extends across the 

boundaries of more than one MPA. If 

any part of the urbanized area is a 

nonattainment or maintenance area, the 

agreement also shall include State and 

local air quality agencies. The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7273 

metropolitan transportation planning 

processes for affected MPOs should, to 

the maximum extent possible, reflect 

coordinated data collection, analysis, 

and planning assumptions across the 

MPAs. Alternatively, a single 

metropolitan transportation plan and/or 

TIP for the entire urbanized area may be 

developed jointly by the MPOs in 

cooperation with their respective 

planning partners. Coordination efforts 

and outcomes shall be documented in 

subsequent transmittals of the UPWP 

and other planning products, including 

the metropolitan transportation plan 

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

the FTA. 

(e) Where the boundaries of the 

urbanized area or MPA extend across 

two or more States, the Governors with 

responsibility for a portion of the 

multistate area, the appropriate MPO(s), 

and the public transportation operator(s) 

shall coordinate transportation planning 

for the entire multistate area. States 

involved in such multistate 

transportation planning may: 

(1) Enter into agreements or compacts, 

not in conflict with any law of the 

United States, for cooperative efforts 

and mutual assistance in support of 

activities authorized under this section 

as the activities pertain to interstate 

areas and localities within the States; 

and 

(2) Establish such agencies, joint or 

otherwise, as the States may determine 

desirable for making the agreements and 

compacts effective. 

(f) If part of an urbanized area that has 

been designated as a TMA overlaps into 

an adjacent MPA serving an urbanized 

area that is not designated as a TMA, the 

adjacent urbanized area shall not be 

treated as a TMA. However, a written 

agreement shall be established between 

the MPOs with MPA boundaries 

including a portion of the TMA, which 

clearly identifies the roles and 

responsibilities of each MPO in meeting 

specific TMA requirements (e.g., 

congestion management process, 

Surface Transportation Program funds 

suballocated to the urbanized area over 

200,000 population, and project 

selection). 

§ 450.316 Interested parties, participation, 

and consultation. 

(a) The MPO shall develop and use a 

documented participation plan that 

defines a process for providing citizens, 

affected public agencies, representatives 

of public transportation employees, 

freight shippers, providers of freight 

transportation services, private 

providers of transportation, 

representatives of users of public 

transportation, representatives of users 

of pedestrian walkways and bicycle 

transportation facilities, representatives 

of the disabled, and other interested 

parties with reasonable opportunities to 

be involved in the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. 

(1) The participation plan shall be 

developed by the MPO in consultation 

with all interested parties and shall, at 

a minimum, describe explicit 

procedures, strategies, and desired 

outcomes for: 

(i) Providing adequate public notice of 

public participation activities and time 

for public review and comment at key 

decision points, including but not 

limited to a reasonable opportunity to 

comment on the proposed metropolitan 

transportation plan and the TIP; 

(ii) Providing timely notice and 

reasonable access to information about 

transportation issues and processes; 

(iii) Employing visualization 

techniques to describe metropolitan 

transportation plans and TIPs; 

(iv) Making public information 

(technical information and meeting 

notices) available in electronically 

accessible formats and means, such as 

the World Wide Web; 

(v) Holding any public meetings at 

convenient and accessible locations and 

times; 

(vi) Demonstrating explicit 

consideration and response to public 

input received during the development 

of the metropolitan transportation plan 

and the TIP; 

(vii) Seeking out and considering the 

needs of those traditionally underserved 

by existing transportation systems, such 

as low-income and minority 

households, who may face challenges 

accessing employment and other 

services; 

(viii) Providing an additional 

opportunity for public comment, if the 

final metropolitan transportation plan or 

TIP differs significantly from the version 

that 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; 

(ix) Coordinating with the statewide 

transportation planning public 

involvement and consultation processes 

under subpart B of this part; and 

(x) Periodically reviewing the 

effectiveness of the procedures and 

strategies contained in the participation 

plan to ensure a full and open 

participation process. 

(2) When significant written and oral 

comments are received on the draft 

metropolitan transportation plan and 

TIP (including the financial plans) as a 

result of the participation process in this 

section or the interagency consultation 

process required under the EPA 

transportation conformity regulations 

(40 CFR part 93), a summary, analysis, 

and report on the disposition of 

comments shall be made as part of the 

final metropolitan transportation plan 

and TIP. 

(3) A minimum public comment 

period of 45 calendar days shall be 

provided before the initial or revised 

participation plan is adopted by the 

MPO. Copies of the approved 

participation plan shall be provided to 

the FHWA and the FTA for 

informational purposes and shall be 

posted on the World Wide Web, to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

(b) In developing metropolitan 

transportation plans and TIPs, the MPO 

should consult with agencies and 

officials responsible for other planning 

activities within the MPA that are 

affected by transportation (including 

State and local planned growth, 

economic development, environmental 

protection, airport operations, or freight 

movements) or coordinate its planning 

process (to the maximum extent 

practicable) with such planning 

activities. In addition, metropolitan 

transportation plans and TIPs shall be 

developed with due consideration of 

other related planning activities within 

the metropolitan area, and the process 

shall provide for the design and delivery 

of transportation services within the 

area that are provided by: 

(1) Recipients of assistance under title 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53; 

(2) Governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations (including 

representatives of the agencies and 

organizations) that receive Federal 

assistance from a source other than the 

U.S. Department of Transportation to 

provide non-emergency transportation 

services; and 

(3) Recipients of assistance under 23 

U.S.C. 204. 

(c) When the MPA includes Indian 

Tribal lands, the MPO shall 

appropriately involve the Indian Tribal 

government(s) in the development of the 

metropolitan transportation plan and 

the TIP. 

(d) When the MPA includes Federal 

public lands, the MPO shall 

appropriately involve the Federal land 

management agencies in the 

development of the metropolitan 

transportation plan and the TIP. 

(e) MPOs shall, to the extent 

practicable, develop a documented 

process(es) that outlines roles, 

responsibilities, and key decision points 

for consulting with other governments 

and agencies, as defined in paragraphs 

(b), (c), and (d) of this section, which 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7274 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

may be included in the agreement(s) 

developed under § 450.314. 

§ 450.318 Transportation planning studies 

and project development. 

(a) Pursuant to section 1308 of the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century, TEA–21 (Pub. L. 105–178), an 

MPO(s), State(s), or public 

transportation operator(s) may 

undertake a multimodal, systems-level 

corridor or subarea planning study as 

part of the metropolitan transportation 

planning process. To the extent 

practicable, development of these 

transportation planning studies shall 

involve consultation with, or joint 

efforts among, the MPO(s), State(s), and/ 

or public transportation operator(s). The 

results or decisions of these 

transportation planning studies may be 

used as part of the overall project 

development process consistent with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

and associated implementing 

regulations (23 CFR part 771 and 40 

CFR parts 1500–1508). Specifically, 

these corridor or subarea studies may 

result in producing any of the following 

for a proposed transportation project: 

(1) Purpose and need or goals and 

objective statement(s); 

(2) General travel corridor and/or 

general mode(s) definition (e.g., 

highway, transit, or a highway/transit 

combination); 

(3) Preliminary screening of 

alternatives and elimination of 

unreasonable alternatives; 

(4) Basic description of the 

environmental setting; and/or 

(5) Preliminary identification of 

environmental impacts and 

environmental mitigation. 

(b) Publicly available documents or 

other source material produced by, or in 

support of, the transportation planning 

process described in this subpart may be 

incorporated directly or by reference 

into subsequent NEPA documents, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21, if: 

(1) The NEPA lead agencies agree that 

such incorporation will aid in 

establishing or evaluating the purpose 

and need for the Federal action, 

reasonable alternatives, cumulative or 

other impacts on the human and natural 

environment, or mitigation of these 

impacts; and 

(2) The systems-level, corridor, or 

subarea planning study is conducted 

with: 

(i) Involvement of interested State, 

local, Tribal, and Federal agencies; 

(ii) Public review; 

(iii) Reasonable opportunity to 

comment during the metropolitan 

transportation planning process and 

development of the corridor or subarea 

planning study; 

(iv) Documentation of relevant 

decisions in a form that is identifiable 

and available for review during the 

NEPA scoping process and can be 

appended to or referenced in the NEPA 

document; and 

(v) The review of the FHWA and the 

FTA, as appropriate. 

(c) By agreement of the NEPA lead 

agencies, the above integration may be 

accomplished through tiering (as 

described in 40 CFR 1502.20), 

incorporating the subarea or corridor 

planning study into the draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

or Environmental Assessment, or other 

means that the NEPA lead agencies 

deem appropriate. 

(d) For transit fixed guideway projects 

requiring an Alternatives Analysis (49 

U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e)), the Alternatives 

Analysis described in 49 CFR part 611 

constitutes the planning required by 

section 1308 of the TEA–21. The 

Alternatives Analysis may or may not be 

combined with the preparation of a 

NEPA document (e.g., a draft EIS). 

When an Alternatives Analysis is 

separate from the preparation of a NEPA 

document, the results of the 

Alternatives Analysis may be used 

during a subsequent environmental 

review process as described in 

paragraph (a). 

(e) Additional information to further 

explain the linkages between the 

transportation planning and project 

development/NEPA processes is 

contained in Appendix A to this part, 

including an explanation that it is nonbinding guidance material. 

§ 450.320 Congestion management 

process in transportation management 

areas. 

(a) The transportation planning 

process in a TMA shall address 

congestion management through a 

process that provides for safe and 

effective integrated management and 

operation of the multimodal 

transportation system, based on a 

cooperatively developed and 

implemented metropolitan-wide 

strategy, of new and existing 

transportation facilities eligible for 

funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 through the use of 

travel demand reduction and 

operational management strategies. 

(b) The development of a congestion 

management process should result in 

multimodal system performance 

measures and strategies that can be 

reflected in the metropolitan 

transportation plan and the TIP. The 

level of system performance deemed 

acceptable by State and local 

transportation officials may vary by type 

of transportation facility, geographic 

location (metropolitan area or subarea), 

and/or time of day. In addition, 

consideration should be given to 

strategies that manage demand, reduce 

single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel, 

and improve transportation system 

management and operations. Where the 

addition of general purpose lanes is 

determined to be an appropriate 

congestion management strategy, 

explicit consideration is to be given to 

the incorporation of appropriate features 

into the SOV project to facilitate future 

demand management strategies and 

operational improvements that will 

maintain the functional integrity and 

safety of those lanes. 

(c) The congestion management 

process shall be developed, established, 

and implemented as part of the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process that includes coordination with 

transportation system management and 

operations activities. The congestion 

management process shall include: 

(1) Methods to monitor and evaluate 

the performance of the multimodal 

transportation system, identify the 

causes of recurring and non-recurring 

congestion, identify and evaluate 

alternative strategies, provide 

information supporting the 

implementation of actions, and evaluate 

the effectiveness of implemented 

actions; 

(2) Definition of congestion 

management objectives and appropriate 

performance measures to assess the 

extent of congestion and support the 

evaluation of the effectiveness of 

congestion reduction and mobility 

enhancement strategies for the 

movement of people and goods. Since 

levels of acceptable system performance 

may vary among local communities, 

performance measures should be 

tailored to the specific needs of the area 

and established cooperatively by the 

State(s), affected MPO(s), and local 

officials in consultation with the 

operators of major modes of 

transportation in the coverage area; 

(3) Establishment of a coordinated 

program for data collection and system 

performance monitoring to define the 

extent and duration of congestion, to 

contribute in determining the causes of 

congestion, and evaluate the efficiency 

and effectiveness of implemented 

actions. To the extent possible, this data 

collection program should be 

coordinated with existing data sources 

(including archived operational/ITS 

data) and coordinated with operations 

managers in the metropolitan area; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7275 

(4) Identification and evaluation of 

the anticipated performance and 

expected benefits of appropriate 

congestion management strategies that 

will contribute to the more effective use 

and improved safety of existing and 

future transportation systems based on 

the established performance measures. 

The following categories of strategies, or 

combinations of strategies, are some 

examples of what should be 

appropriately considered for each area: 

(i) Demand management measures, 

including growth management and 

congestion pricing; 

(ii) Traffic operational improvements; 

(iii) Public transportation 

improvements; 

(iv) ITS technologies as related to the 

regional ITS architecture; and 

(v) Where necessary, additional 

system capacity; 

(5) Identification of an 

implementation schedule, 

implementation responsibilities, and 

possible funding sources for each 

strategy (or combination of strategies) 

proposed for implementation; and 

(6) Implementation of a process for 

periodic assessment of the effectiveness 

of implemented strategies, in terms of 

the area’s established performance 

measures. The results of this evaluation 

shall be provided to decisionmakers and 

the public to provide guidance on 

selection of effective strategies for future 

implementation. 

(d) In a TMA designated as 

nonattainment area for ozone or carbon 

monoxide pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act, Federal funds may not be 

programmed for any project that will 

result in a significant increase in the 

carrying capacity for SOVs (i.e., 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 is 

addressed through a congestion 

management process meeting the 

requirements of this section. 

(e) In TMAs designated as 

nonattainment for ozone or carbon 

monoxide, the congestion management 

process shall provide an appropriate 

analysis of reasonable (including 

multimodal) travel demand reduction 

and operational management strategies 

for the corridor in which a project that 

will result in a significant increase in 

capacity for SOVs (as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section) is 

proposed to be advanced with Federal 

funds. If the analysis demonstrates that 

travel demand reduction and 

operational management strategies 

cannot fully satisfy the need for 

additional capacity in the corridor and 

additional SOV capacity is warranted, 

then the congestion management 

process shall identify all reasonable 

strategies to manage the SOV facility 

safely and effectively (or to facilitate its 

management in the future). Other travel 

demand reduction and operational 

management strategies appropriate for 

the corridor, but not appropriate for 

incorporation into the SOV facility 

itself, shall also be identified through 

the congestion management process. All 

identified reasonable travel demand 

reduction and operational management 

strategies shall be incorporated into the 

SOV project or committed to by the 

State and MPO for implementation. 

(f) State laws, rules, or regulations 

pertaining to congestion management 

systems or programs may constitute the 

congestion management process, if the 

FHWA and the FTA find that the State 

laws, rules, or regulations are consistent 

with, and fulfill the intent of, the 

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

5303. 

§ 450.322 Development and content of the 

metropolitan transportation plan. 

(a) The metropolitan transportation 

planning process shall include the 

development of a transportation plan 

addressing no less than a 20-year 

planning horizon as of the effective 

date. In nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, the effective date of the 

transportation plan shall be the date of 

a conformity determination issued by 

the FHWA and the FTA. In attainment 

areas, the effective date of the 

transportation plan shall be its date of 

adoption by the MPO. 

(b) The transportation plan shall 

include both long-range and short-range 

strategies/actions that lead to the 

development of an integrated 

multimodal transportation system to 

facilitate the safe and efficient 

movement of people and goods in 

addressing current and future 

transportation demand. 

(c) The MPO shall review and update 

the transportation plan at least every 

four years in air quality nonattainment 

and maintenance areas and at least 

every five years in attainment areas to 

confirm the transportation plan’s 

validity and consistency with current 

and forecasted transportation and land 

use conditions and trends and to extend 

the forecast period to at least a 20-year 

planning horizon. In addition, the MPO 

may revise the transportation plan at 

any time using the procedures in this 

section without a requirement to extend 

the horizon year. The transportation 

plan (and any revisions) shall be 

approved by the MPO and submitted for 

information purposes to the Governor. 

Copies of any updated or revised 

transportation plans must be provided 

to the FHWA and the FTA. 

(d) In metropolitan areas that are in 

nonattainment for ozone or carbon 

monoxide, the MPO shall coordinate the 

development of the metropolitan 

transportation plan with the process for 

developing transportation control 

measures (TCMs) in a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). 

(e) The MPO, the State(s), and the 

public transportation operator(s) shall 

validate data utilized in preparing other 

existing modal plans for providing input 

to the transportation plan. In updating 

the transportation plan, the MPO shall 

base the update on the latest available 

estimates and assumptions for 

population, land use, travel, 

employment, congestion, and economic 

activity. The MPO shall approve 

transportation plan contents and 

supporting analyses produced by a 

transportation plan update. 

(f) The metropolitan transportation 

plan shall, at a minimum, include: 

(1) The projected transportation 

demand of persons and goods in the 

metropolitan planning area over the 

period of the transportation plan; 

(2) Existing and proposed 

transportation facilities (including major 

roadways, transit, multimodal and 

intermodal facilities, pedestrian 

walkways and bicycle facilities, and 

intermodal connectors) that should 

function as an integrated metropolitan 

transportation system, giving emphasis 

to those facilities that serve important 

national and regional transportation 

functions over the period of the 

transportation plan. In addition, the 

locally preferred alternative selected 

from an Alternatives Analysis under the 

FTA’s Capital Investment Grant program 

(49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR part 611) 

needs to be adopted as part of the 

metropolitan transportation plan as a 

condition for funding under 49 U.S.C. 

5309; 

(3) Operational and management 

strategies to improve the performance of 

existing transportation facilities to 

relieve vehicular congestion and 

maximize the safety and mobility of 

people and goods; 

(4) Consideration of the results of the 

congestion management process in 

TMAs that meet the requirements of this 

subpart, including the identification of 

SOV projects that result from a 

congestion management process in 

TMAs that are nonattainment for ozone 

or carbon monoxide; 

(5) Assessment of capital investment 

and other strategies to preserve the 

existing and projected future 

metropolitan transportation 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7276 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

infrastructure and provide for 

multimodal capacity increases based on 

regional priorities and needs. The 

metropolitan transportation plan may 

consider projects and strategies that 

address areas or corridors where current 

or projected congestion threatens the 

efficient functioning of key elements of 

the metropolitan area’s transportation 

system; 

(6) Design concept and design scope 

descriptions of all existing and 

proposed transportation facilities in 

sufficient detail, regardless of funding 

source, in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas for conformity 

determinations under the EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93). In all areas (regardless of air 

quality designation), all proposed 

improvements shall be described in 

sufficient detail to develop cost 

estimates; 

(7) A discussion of types of potential 

environmental mitigation activities and 

potential areas to carry out these 

activities, including activities that may 

have the greatest potential to restore and 

maintain the environmental functions 

affected by the metropolitan 

transportation plan. The discussion may 

focus on policies, programs, or 

strategies, rather than at the project 

level. The discussion shall be developed 

in consultation with Federal, State, and 

Tribal land management, wildlife, and 

regulatory agencies. The MPO may 

establish reasonable timeframes for 

performing this consultation; 

(8) Pedestrian walkway and bicycle 

transportation facilities in accordance 

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

(9) Transportation and transit 

enhancement activities, as appropriate; 

and 

(10) A financial plan that 

demonstrates how the adopted 

transportation plan can be 

implemented. 

(i) For purposes of transportation 

system operations and maintenance, the 

financial plan shall contain system-level 

estimates of costs and revenue sources 

that are reasonably expected to be 

available to adequately operate and 

maintain Federal-aid highways (as 

defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and 

public transportation (as defined by title 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). 

(ii) For the purpose of developing the 

metropolitan transportation plan, the 

MPO, public transportation operator(s), 

and State shall cooperatively develop 

estimates of funds that will be available 

to support metropolitan transportation 

plan implementation, as required under 

§ 450.314(a). All necessary financial 

resources from public and private 

sources that are reasonably expected to 

be made available to carry out the 

transportation plan shall be identified. 

(iii) The financial plan shall include 

recommendations on any additional 

financing strategies to fund projects and 

programs included in the metropolitan 

transportation plan. In the case of new 

funding sources, strategies for ensuring 

their availability shall be identified. 

(iv) In developing the financial plan, 

the MPO shall take into account all 

projects and strategies proposed for 

funding under title 23 U.S.C., title 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 53 or with other Federal 

funds; State assistance; local sources; 

and private participation. Starting 

December 11, 2007, revenue and cost 

estimates that support the metropolitan 

transportation plan must use an 

inflation rate(s) to reflect ‘‘year of 

expenditure dollars,’’ based on 

reasonable financial principles and 

information, developed cooperatively by 

the MPO, State(s), and public 

transportation operator(s). 

(v) For the outer years of the 

metropolitan transportation plan (i.e., 

beyond the first 10 years), the financial 

plan may reflect aggregate cost ranges/ 

cost bands, as long as the future funding 

source(s) is reasonably expected to be 

available to support the projected cost 

ranges/cost bands. 

(vi) For nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, the financial plan 

shall address the specific financial 

strategies required to ensure the 

implementation of TCMs in the 

applicable SIP. 

(vii) For illustrative purposes, the 

financial plan may (but is not required 

to) include additional projects that 

would be included in the adopted 

transportation plan if additional 

resources beyond those identified in the 

financial plan were to become available. 

(viii) In cases that the FHWA and the 

FTA find a metropolitan transportation 

plan to be fiscally constrained and a 

revenue source is subsequently removed 

or substantially reduced (i.e., by 

legislative or administrative actions), 

the FHWA and the FTA will not 

withdraw the original determination of 

fiscal constraint; however, in such 

cases, the FHWA and the FTA will not 

act on an updated or amended 

metropolitan transportation plan that 

does not reflect the changed revenue 

situation. 

(g) The MPO shall consult, as 

appropriate, with State and local 

agencies responsible for land use 

management, natural resources, 

environmental protection, conservation, 

and historic preservation concerning the 

development of the transportation plan. 

The consultation shall involve, as 

appropriate: 

(1) Comparison of transportation 

plans with State conservation plans or 

maps, if available; or 

(2) Comparison of transportation 

plans to inventories of natural or 

historic resources, if available. 

(h) The metropolitan transportation 

plan should include a safety element 

that incorporates or summarizes the 

priorities, goals, countermeasures, or 

projects for the MPA contained in the 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan required 

under 23 U.S.C. 148, as well as (as 

appropriate) emergency relief and 

disaster preparedness plans and 

strategies and policies that support 

homeland security (as appropriate) and 

safeguard the personal security of all 

motorized and non-motorized users. 

(i) The MPO shall provide citizens, 

affected public agencies, representatives 

of public transportation employees, 

freight shippers, providers of freight 

transportation services, private 

providers of transportation, 

representatives of users of public 

transportation, representatives of users 

of pedestrian walkways and bicycle 

transportation facilities, representatives 

of the disabled, and other interested 

parties with a reasonable opportunity to 

comment on the transportation plan 

using the participation plan developed 

under § 450.316(a). 

(j) The metropolitan transportation 

plan shall be published or otherwise 

made readily available by the MPO for 

public review, including (to the 

maximum extent practicable) in 

electronically accessible formats and 

means, such as the World Wide Web. 

(k) A State or MPO shall not be 

required to select any project from the 

illustrative list of additional projects 

included in the financial plan under 

paragraph (f)(10) of this section. 

(l) In nonattainment and maintenance 

areas for transportation-related 

pollutants, the MPO, as well as the 

FHWA and the FTA, must make a 

conformity determination on any 

updated or amended transportation plan 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act 

and the EPA transportation conformity 

regulations (40 CFR part 93). During a 

conformity lapse, MPOs can prepare an 

interim metropolitan transportation 

plan as a basis for advancing projects 

that are eligible to proceed under a 

conformity lapse. An interim 

metropolitan transportation plan 

consisting of eligible projects from, or 

consistent with, the most recent 

conforming transportation plan and TIP 

may proceed immediately without 

revisiting the requirements of this 

section, subject to interagency 

consultation defined in 40 CFR part 93. 

An interim metropolitan transportation 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7277 

plan containing eligible projects that are 

not from, or consistent with, the most 

recent conforming transportation plan 

and TIP must meet all the requirements 

of this section. 

§ 450.324 Development and content of the 

transportation improvement program (TIP). 

(a) The MPO, in cooperation with the 

State(s) and any affected public 

transportation operator(s), shall develop 

a TIP for the metropolitan planning 

area. The TIP shall cover a period of no 

less than four years, be updated at least 

every four years, and be approved by the 

MPO and the Governor. However, if the 

TIP covers more than four years, the 

FHWA and the FTA will consider the 

projects in the additional years as 

informational. The TIP may be updated 

more frequently, but the cycle for 

updating the TIP must be compatible 

with the STIP development and 

approval process. The TIP expires when 

the FHWA/FTA approval of the STIP 

expires. Copies of any updated or 

revised TIPs must be provided to the 

FHWA and the FTA. In nonattainment 

and maintenance areas subject to 

transportation conformity requirements, 

the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the 

MPO, must make a conformity 

determination on any updated or 

amended TIP, in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act requirements and the 

EPA’s transportation conformity 

regulations (40 CFR part 93). 

(b) The MPO shall provide all 

interested parties with a reasonable 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed TIP as required by 

§ 450.316(a). In addition, in 

nonattainment area TMAs, the MPO 

shall provide at least one formal public 

meeting during the TIP development 

process, which should be addressed 

through the participation plan described 

in § 450.316(a). In addition, the TIP 

shall be published or otherwise made 

readily available by the MPO for public 

review, including (to the maximum 

extent practicable) in electronically 

accessible formats and means, such as 

the World Wide Web, as described in 

§ 450.316(a). 

(c) The TIP shall include capital and 

non-capital surface transportation 

projects (or phases of projects) within 

the boundaries of the metropolitan 

planning area proposed for funding 

under 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 

53 (including transportation 

enhancements; Federal Lands Highway 

program projects; safety projects 

included in the State’s Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan; trails projects; 

pedestrian walkways; and bicycle 

facilities), except the following that may 

(but are not required to) be included: 

(1) Safety projects funded under 23 

U.S.C. 402 and 49 U.S.C. 31102; 

(2) Metropolitan planning projects 

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

5305(d), and 49 U.S.C. 5339; 

(3) State planning and research 

projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 505 and 

49 U.S.C. 5305(e); 

(4) At the discretion of the State and 

MPO, State planning and research 

projects funded with National Highway 

System, Surface Transportation 

Program, and/or Equity Bonus funds; 

(5) Emergency relief projects (except 

those involving substantial functional, 

locational, or capacity changes); 

(6) National planning and research 

projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 5314; 

and 

(7) Project management oversight 

projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 5327. 

(d) The TIP shall contain all 

regionally significant projects requiring 

an action by the FHWA or the FTA 

whether or not the projects are to be 

funded under title 23 U.S.C. Chapters 1 

and 2 or title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 (e.g., 

addition of an interchange to the 

Interstate System with State, local, and/ 

or private funds and congressionally 

designated projects not funded under 23 

U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). For 

public information and conformity 

purposes, the TIP shall include all 

regionally significant projects proposed 

to be funded with Federal funds other 

than those administered by the FHWA 

or the FTA, as well as all regionally 

significant projects to be funded with 

non-Federal funds. 

(e) The TIP shall include, for each 

project or phase (e.g., preliminary 

engineering, environment/NEPA, rightof-way, design, or construction), the 

following: 

(1) Sufficient descriptive material 

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

to identify the project or phase; 

(2) Estimated total project cost, which 

may extend beyond the four years of the 

TIP; 

(3) The amount of Federal funds 

proposed to be obligated during each 

program year for the project or phase 

(for the first year, this includes the 

proposed category of Federal funds and 

source(s) of non-Federal funds. For the 

second, third, and fourth years, this 

includes the likely category or possible 

categories of Federal funds and sources 

of non-Federal funds); 

(4) Identification of the agencies 

responsible for carrying out the project 

or phase; 

(5) In nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, identification of those projects 

which are identified as TCMs in the 

applicable SIP; 

(6) In nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, included projects shall be 

specified in sufficient detail (design 

concept and scope) for air quality 

analysis in accordance with the EPA 

transportation conformity regulation (40 

CFR part 93); and 

(7) In areas with Americans with 

Disabilities Act required paratransit and 

key station plans, identification of those 

projects that will implement these 

plans. 

(f) 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 

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

93. In nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, project classifications must be 

consistent with the ‘‘exempt project’’

classifications contained in the EPA 

transportation conformity regulation (40 

CFR part 93). In addition, projects 

proposed for funding under title 23 

U.S.C. Chapter 2 that are not regionally 

significant may be grouped in one line 

item or identified individually in the 

TIP. 

(g) Each project or project phase 

included in the TIP shall be consistent 

with the approved metropolitan 

transportation plan. 

(h) The TIP shall include a financial 

plan that demonstrates how the 

approved TIP can be implemented, 

indicates resources from public and 

private sources that are reasonably 

expected to be made available to carry 

out the TIP, and recommends any 

additional financing strategies for 

needed projects and programs. In 

developing the TIP, the MPO, State(s), 

and public transportation operator(s) 

shall cooperatively develop estimates of 

funds that are reasonably expected to be 

available to support TIP 

implementation, in accordance with 

§ 450.314(a). Only projects for which 

construction or operating funds can 

reasonably be expected to be available 

may be included. In the case of new 

funding sources, strategies for ensuring 

their availability shall be identified. In 

developing the financial plan, the MPO 

shall take into account all projects and 

strategies funded under title 23 U.S.C., 

title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and other 

Federal funds; and regionally significant 

projects that are not federally funded. 

For purposes of transportation 

operations and maintenance, the 

financial plan shall contain system-level 

estimates of costs and revenue sources 

that are reasonably expected to be 

available to adequately operate and 

maintain Federal-aid highways (as 

defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7278 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

public transportation (as defined by title 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). In addition, for 

illustrative purposes, the financial plan 

may (but is not required to) include 

additional projects that would be 

included in the TIP if reasonable 

additional resources beyond those 

identified in the financial plan were to 

become available. Starting [Insert date 

270 days after effective date], revenue 

and cost estimates for the TIP must use 

an inflation rate(s) to reflect ‘‘year of 

expenditure dollars,’’ based on 

reasonable financial principles and 

information, developed cooperatively by 

the MPO, State(s), and public 

transportation operator(s). 

(i) The TIP shall include a project, or 

a 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. In nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, projects included in 

the first two years of the TIP shall be 

limited to those for which funds are 

available or committed. For the TIP, 

financial constraint shall be 

demonstrated and maintained by year 

and shall include sufficient financial 

information to demonstrate which 

projects are to be implemented using 

current and/or reasonably available 

revenues, while federally supported 

facilities are being adequately operated 

and maintained. In the case of proposed 

funding sources, strategies for ensuring 

their availability shall be identified in 

the financial plan consistent with 

paragraph (h) of this section. In 

nonattainment and maintenance areas, 

the TIP shall give priority to eligible 

TCMs identified in the approved SIP in 

accordance with the EPA transportation 

conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93) 

and shall provide for their timely 

implementation. 

(j) Procedures or agreements that 

distribute suballocated Surface 

Transportation Program funds or funds 

under 49 U.S.C. 5307 to individual 

jurisdictions or modes within the MPA 

by pre-determined percentages or 

formulas are inconsistent with the 

legislative provisions that require the 

MPO, in cooperation with the State and 

the public transportation operator, 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 metropolitan 

transportation planning process. 

(k) For the purpose of including 

projects funded under 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 MPA; and 

(2) The total Federal share of projects 

included in the second, third, fourth, 

and/or subsequent years of the TIP may 

not exceed levels of funding committed, 

or reasonably expected to be available, 

to the MPA. 

(l) As a management tool for 

monitoring progress in implementing 

the transportation plan, the TIP should: 

(1) Identify the criteria and process for 

prioritizing implementation of 

transportation plan elements (including 

multimodal trade-offs) for inclusion in 

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; and 

(3) In nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, describe the progress in 

implementing any required TCMs, in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 93. 

(m) During a conformity lapse, MPOs 

may prepare an interim TIP as a basis 

for advancing projects that are eligible 

to proceed under a conformity lapse. An 

interim TIP consisting of eligible 

projects from, or consistent with, the 

most recent conforming metropolitan 

transportation plan and TIP may 

proceed immediately without revisiting 

the requirements of this section, subject 

to interagency consultation defined in 

40 CFR part 93. An interim TIP 

containing eligible projects that are not 

from, or consistent with, the most recent 

conforming transportation plan and TIP 

must meet all the requirements of this 

section. 

(n) Projects in any of the first four 

years of the TIP may be advanced in 

place of another project in the first four 

years of the TIP, subject to the project 

selection requirements of § 450.330. In 

addition, the TIP may be revised at any 

time under procedures agreed to by the 

State, MPO(s), and public transportation 

operator(s) consistent with the TIP 

development procedures established in 

this section, as well as the procedures 

for the MPO participation plan (see 

§ 450.316(a)) and FHWA/FTA actions 

on the TIP (see § 450.328). 

(o) In cases that the FHWA and the 

FTA find a TIP to be fiscally constrained 

and a revenue source is subsequently 

removed or substantially reduced (i.e., 

by legislative or administrative actions), 

the FHWA and the FTA will not 

withdraw the original determination of 

fiscal constraint. However, in such 

cases, the FHWA and the FTA will not 

act on an updated or amended TIP that 

does not reflect the changed revenue 

situation. 

§ 450.326 TIP revisions and relationship to 

the STIP. 

(a) An MPO may revise the TIP 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 a 

TIP amendment involves non-exempt 

projects (per 40 CFR part 93), or is 

replaced with an updated TIP, the MPO 

and the FHWA and the FTA must make 

a new conformity determination. In all 

areas, changes that affect fiscal 

constraint must take place by 

amendment of the TIP. Public 

participation procedures consistent with 

§ 450.316(a) shall be utilized in revising 

the TIP, except that these procedures are 

not required for administrative 

modifications. 

(b) After approval by the MPO and the 

Governor, the TIP shall be included 

without change, directly or by reference, 

in the STIP required under 23 U.S.C. 

135. In nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, a conformity finding on the TIP 

must be made by the FHWA and the 

FTA before it is included in the STIP. 

A copy of the approved TIP shall be 

provided to the FHWA and the FTA. 

(c) The State shall notify the MPO and 

Federal land management agencies 

when a TIP including projects under the 

jurisdiction of these agencies has been 

included in the STIP. 

§ 450.328 TIP action by the FHWA and the 

FTA. 

(a) The FHWA and the FTA shall 

jointly find that each metropolitan TIP 

is consistent with the metropolitan 

transportation plan produced by the 

continuing and comprehensive 

transportation process carried on 

cooperatively by the MPO(s), the 

State(s), and the public transportation 

operator(s) in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 

134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303. This finding 

shall be based on the self-certification 

statement submitted by the State and 

MPO under § 450.334, a review of the 

metropolitan transportation plan by the 

FHWA and the FTA, and upon other 

reviews as deemed necessary by the 

FHWA and the FTA. 

(b) In nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, the MPO, as well as the FHWA 

and the FTA, shall determine 

conformity of any updated or amended 

TIP, in accordance with 40 CFR part 93. 

After the FHWA and the FTA issue a 

conformity determination on the TIP, 

the TIP shall be incorporated, without 

change, into the STIP, directly or by 

reference. 

(c) If the metropolitan transportation 

plan has not been updated in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7279 

accordance with the cycles defined in 

§ 450.322(c), projects may only be 

advanced from a TIP that was approved 

and found to conform (in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas) prior to 

expiration of the metropolitan 

transportation plan and meets the TIP 

update requirements of § 450.324(a). 

Until the MPO approves (in attainment 

areas) or the FHWA/FTA issues a 

conformity determination on (in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas) 

the updated metropolitan transportation 

plan, the TIP may not be amended. 

(d) 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 TIP 

in accordance with § 450.218(c). 

(e) 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 financially constrained and 

conforming metropolitan transportation 

plan and TIP. 

(f) Where necessary in order to 

maintain or establish operations, the 

FHWA and the FTA may approve 

highway and transit operating assistance 

for specific projects or programs, even 

though the projects or programs may not 

be included in an approved TIP. 

§ 450.330 Project selection from the TIP. 

(a) Once a TIP that meets the 

requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134(j), 49 

U.S.C. 5303(j), and § 450.324 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 or where there are significant 

shifting of projects between years. In 

this case, a revised ‘‘agreed to’’ list of 

projects shall be jointly developed by 

the MPO, the State, and the public 

transportation operator(s) if requested 

by the MPO, the State, or the public 

transportation operator(s). If the State or 

public transportation operator(s) wishes 

to proceed with a project in the second, 

third, or fourth 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 public transportation 

operator(s) jointly develop expedited 

project selection procedures to provide 

for the advancement of projects from the 

second, third, or fourth years of the TIP. 

(b) In metropolitan areas not 

designated as TMAs, projects to be 

implemented using title 23 U.S.C. funds 

(other than Federal Lands Highway 

program projects) or funds under title 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 53, shall be selected by 

the State and/or the public 

transportation operator(s), in 

cooperation with the MPO from the 

approved metropolitan TIP. Federal 

Lands Highway program projects shall 

be selected in accordance with 

procedures developed pursuant to 23 

U.S.C. 204. 

(c) In areas designated as TMAs, all 23 

U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funded 

projects (excluding projects on the 

National Highway System (NHS) and 

projects funded under the Bridge, 

Interstate Maintenance, and Federal 

Lands Highway programs) shall be 

selected by the MPO in consultation 

with the State and public transportation 

operator(s) from the approved TIP and 

in accordance with the priorities in the 

approved TIP. Projects on the NHS and 

projects funded under the Bridge and 

Interstate Maintenance programs shall 

be selected by the State in cooperation 

with the MPO, from the approved TIP. 

Federal Lands Highway program 

projects shall be selected in accordance 

with procedures developed pursuant to 

23 U.S.C. 204. 

(d) Except as provided in § 450.324(c) 

and § 450.328(f), projects not included 

in the federally approved STIP shall not 

be eligible for funding with funds under 

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

(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 EPA transportation 

conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93). 

§ 450.332 Annual listing of obligated 

projects. 

(a) In metropolitan planning areas, on 

an annual basis, no later than 90 

calendar days following the end of the 

program year, the State, public 

transportation operator(s), and the MPO 

shall cooperatively develop a listing of 

projects (including investments in 

pedestrian walkways and bicycle 

transportation facilities) for which funds 

under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 

were obligated in the preceding program 

year. 

(b) The listing shall be prepared in 

accordance with § 450.314(a) and shall 

include all federally funded projects 

authorized or revised to increase 

obligations in the preceding program 

year, and shall at a minimum include 

the TIP information under 

§ 450.324(e)(1) and (4) and identify, for 

each project, the amount of Federal 

funds requested in the TIP, the Federal 

funding that was obligated during the 

preceding year, and the Federal funding 

remaining and available for subsequent 

years. 

(c) The listing shall be published or 

otherwise made available in accordance 

with the MPO’s public participation 

criteria for the TIP. 

§ 450.334 Self-certifications and Federal 

certifications. 

(a) For all MPAs, concurrent with the 

submittal of the entire proposed TIP to 

the FHWA and the FTA as part of the 

STIP approval, the State and the MPO 

shall certify at least every four years that 

the metropolitan transportation 

planning process is being carried out in 

accordance with all applicable 

requirements including: 

(1) 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and 

this subpart; 

(2) In 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 40 

CFR part 93; 

(3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d–1) 

and 49 CFR part 21; 

(4) 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, creed, national origin, sex, or age 

in employment or business opportunity; 

(5) Section 1101(b) of the SAFETEA–

LU (Pub. L. 109–59) and 49 CFR part 26 

regarding the involvement of 

disadvantaged business enterprises in 

USDOT funded projects; 

(6) 23 CFR part 230, regarding the 

implementation of an equal 

employment opportunity program on 

Federal and Federal-aid highway 

construction contracts; 

(7) The provisions of the Americans 

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

12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, 

and 38; 

(8) The Older Americans Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of age in 

programs or activities receiving Federal 

financial assistance; 

(9) Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C. 

regarding the prohibition of 

discrimination based on gender; and 

(10) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 CFR 

part 27 regarding discrimination against 

individuals with disabilities. 

(b) In TMAs, the FHWA and the FTA 

jointly shall review and evaluate the 

transportation planning process for each 

TMA no less than once every four years 

to determine if the process meets the 

requirements of applicable provisions of 

Federal law and this subpart. 

(1) After review and evaluation of the 

TMA planning process, the FHWA and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7280 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

FTA shall take one of the following 

actions: 

(i) If the process meets the 

requirements of this part and a TIP has 

been approved by the MPO and the 

Governor, jointly certify the 

transportation planning process; 

(ii) If the process substantially meets 

the requirements of this part and a TIP 

has been approved by the MPO and the 

Governor, jointly certify the 

transportation planning process subject 

to certain specified corrective actions 

being taken; or 

(iii) If 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 FHWA and 

the FTA jointly determine, subject to 

certain specified corrective actions 

being taken. 

(2) If, upon the review and evaluation 

conducted under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of 

this section, the FHWA and the FTA do 

not certify the transportation planning 

process in a TMA, the Secretary may 

withhold up to 20 percent of the funds 

attributable to the metropolitan 

planning area of the MPO for projects 

funded under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 53 in addition to 

corrective actions and funding 

restrictions. The withheld funds shall be 

restored to the MPA when the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process is certified by the FHWA and 

FTA, unless the funds have lapsed. 

(3) A certification of the TMA 

planning process will remain in effect 

for four years unless a new certification 

determination is made sooner by the 

FHWA and the FTA or a shorter term is 

specified in the certification report. 

(4) In conducting a certification 

review, the FHWA and the FTA shall 

provide opportunities for public 

involvement within the metropolitan 

planning area under review. The FHWA 

and the FTA shall consider the public 

input received in arriving at a decision 

on a certification action. 

(5) The MPO(s), the State(s), and 

public transportation operator(s) shall 

be notified of the actions taken under 

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

section. The FHWA and the FTA will 

update the certification status of the 

TMA when evidence of satisfactory 

completion of a corrective action(s) is 

provided to the FHWA and the FTA. 

§ 450.336 Applicability of NEPA to 

metropolitan transportation plans and 

programs. 

Any decision by the Secretary 

concerning a metropolitan 

transportation plan or TIP developed 

through the processes provided for in 23 

U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and this 

subpart shall not be considered to be a 

Federal action subject to review under 

NEPA. 

§ 450.338 Phase-in of new requirements. 

(a) Metropolitan transportation plans 

and TIPs adopted or approved prior to 

July 1, 2007 may be developed using the 

TEA–21 requirements or the provisions 

and requirements of this part. 

(b) For metropolitan transportation 

plans and TIPs that are developed under 

TEA–21 requirements prior to July 1, 

2007, the FHWA/FTA action (i.e., 

conformity determinations and STIP 

approvals) must be completed no later 

than June 30, 2007. For metropolitan 

transportation plans in attainment areas 

that are developed under TEA–21 

requirements prior to July 1, 2007, the 

MPO adoption action must be 

completed no later than June 30, 2007. 

If these actions are completed on or after 

July 1, 2007, the provisions and 

requirements of this part shall take 

effect, regardless of when the 

metropolitan transportation plan or TIP 

were developed. 

(c) On and after July 1, 2007, the 

FHWA and the FTA will take action on 

a new TIP developed under the 

provisions of this part, even if the MPO 

has not yet adopted a new metropolitan 

transportation plan under the provisions 

of this part, as long as the underlying 

transportation planning process is 

consistent with the requirements in the 

SAFETEA–LU. 

(d) The applicable action (see 

paragraph (b) of this section) on any 

amendments or updates to metropolitan 

transportation plans and TIPs on or after 

July 1, 2007, shall be based on the 

provisions and requirements of this 

part. However, administrative 

modifications may be made to the 

metropolitan transportation plan or TIP 

on or after July 1, 2007 in the absence 

of meeting the provisions and 

requirements of this part. 

(e) For new TMAs, the congestion 

management process described in 

§ 450.320 shall be implemented within 

18 months of the designation of a new 

TMA. 

Appendix A to Part 450—Linking the 

Transportation Planning and NEPA 

Processes 

Background and Overview: 

This Appendix provides additional 

information to explain the linkage between 

the transportation planning and project 

development/National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) processes. It is intended to be 

non-binding and should not be construed as 

a rule of general applicability. 

For 40 years, the Congress has directed that 

federally-funded highway and transit projects 

must flow from metropolitan and statewide 

transportation planning processes (pursuant 

to 23 U.S.C. 134–135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303–

5306). Over the years, the Congress has 

refined and strengthened the transportation 

planning process as the foundation for 

project decisions, emphasizing public 

involvement, consideration of environmental 

and other factors, and a Federal role that 

oversees the transportation planning process 

but does not second-guess the content of 

transportation plans and programs. 

Despite this statutory emphasis on 

transportation planning, the environmental 

analyses produced to meet the requirements 

of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) 

have often been conducted de novo, 

disconnected from the analyses used to 

develop long-range transportation plans, 

statewide and metropolitan Transportation 

Improvement Programs (STIPs/TIPs), or 

planning-level corridor/subarea/feasibility 

studies. When the NEPA and transportation 

planning processes are not well coordinated, 

the NEPA process may lead to the 

development of information that is more 

appropriately developed in the planning 

process, resulting in duplication of work and 

delays in transportation improvements. 

The purpose of this Appendix is to change 

this culture, by supporting congressional 

intent that statewide and metropolitan 

transportation planning should be the 

foundation for highway and transit project 

decisions. This Appendix was crafted to 

recognize that transportation planning 

processes vary across the country. This 

document provides details on how 

information, analysis, and products from 

transportation planning can be incorporated 

into and relied upon in NEPA documents 

under existing laws, regardless of when the 

Notice of Intent has been published. This 

Appendix presents environmental review as 

a continuum of sequential study, refinement, 

and expansion performed in transportation 

planning and during project development/ 

NEPA, with information developed and 

conclusions drawn in early stages utilized in 

subsequent (and more detailed) review 

stages. 

The information below is intended for use 

by State departments of transportation (State 

DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs), and public transportation operators 

to clarify the circumstances under which 

transportation planning level choices and 

analyses can be adopted or incorporated into 

the process required by NEPA. Additionally, 

the FHWA and the FTA will work with 

Federal environmental, regulatory, and 

resource agencies to incorporate the 

principles of this Appendix in their day-today NEPA policies and procedures related to 

their involvement in highway and transit 

projects. 

This Appendix does not extend NEPA 

requirements to transportation plans and 

programs. The Transportation Efficiency Act 

for the 21st Century (TEA–21) and the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) specifically exempted 

transportation plans and programs from 

NEPA review. Therefore, initiating the NEPA 

process as part of, or concurrently with, a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7281 

transportation planning study does not 

subject transportation plans and programs to 

NEPA. 

Implementation of this Appendix by 

States, MPOs, and public transportation 

operators is voluntary. The degree to which 

studies, analyses, or conclusions from the 

transportation planning process can be 

incorporated into the project development/ 

NEPA processes will depend upon how well 

they meet certain standards established by 

NEPA regulations and guidance. While some 

transportation planning processes already 

meet these standards, others will need some 

modification. 

The remainder of this Appendix document 

utilizes a ‘‘Question and Answer’’ format, 

organized into three primary categories 

(‘‘Procedural Issues,’’ ‘‘Substantive Issues,’’

and ‘‘Administrative Issues’’). 

I. Procedural Issues: 

1. In what format should the transportation 

planning information be included? 

To be included in the NEPA process, work 

from the transportation planning process 

must be documented in a form that can be 

appended to the NEPA document or 

incorporated by reference. Documents may 

be incorporated by reference if they are 

readily available so as to not impede agency 

or public review of the action. Any document 

incorporated by reference must be 

‘‘reasonably available for inspection by 

potentially interested persons within the 

time allowed for comment.’’ Incorporated 

materials must be cited in the NEPA 

document and their contents briefly 

described, so that the reader understands 

why the document is cited and knows where 

to look for further information. To the extent 

possible, the documentation should be in a 

form such as official actions by the MPO, 

State DOT, or public transportation operator 

and/or correspondence within and among the 

organizations involved in the transportation 

planning process. 

2. What is a reasonable level of detail for 

a planning product that is intended to be 

used in a NEPA document? How does this 

level of detail compare to what is considered 

a full NEPA analysis? 

For purposes of transportation planning 

alone, a planning-level analysis does not 

need to rise to the level of detail required in 

the NEPA process. Rather, it needs to be 

accurate and up-to-date, and should 

adequately support recommended 

improvements in the statewide or 

metropolitan long-range transportation plan. 

The SAFETEA–LU requires transportation 

planning processes to focus on setting a 

context and following acceptable procedures. 

For example, the SAFETEA–LU requires a 

‘‘discussion of the types of potential 

environmental mitigation activities’’ and 

potential areas for their implementation, 

rather than details on specific strategies. The 

SAFETEA–LU also emphasizes consultation 

with Federal, State, and Tribal land 

management, wildlife, and regulatory 

agencies. 

However, the Environmental Assessment 

(EA) or Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) ultimately will be judged by the 

standards applicable under the NEPA 

regulations and guidance from the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ). To the 

extent the information incorporated from the 

transportation planning process, standing 

alone, does not contain all of the information 

or analysis required by NEPA, then it will 

need to be supplemented by other 

information contained in the EIS or EA that 

would, in conjunction with the information 

from the plan, collectively meet the 

requirements of NEPA. The intent is not to 

require NEPA studies in the transportation 

planning process. As an option, the NEPA 

analyses prepared for project development 

can be integrated with transportation 

planning studies (see the response to 

Question 9 for additional information). 

3. What type and extent of involvement 

from Federal, Tribal, State, and local 

environmental, regulatory, and resource 

agencies is needed in the transportation 

planning process in order for planning-level 

decisions to be more readily accepted in the 

NEPA process? 

Sections 3005, 3006, and 6001 of the 

SAFETEA–LU established formal 

consultation requirements for MPOs and 

State DOTs to employ with environmental, 

regulatory, and resource agencies in the 

development of long-range transportation 

plans. For example, metropolitan 

transportation plans now ‘‘shall include a 

discussion of the types of potential 

environmental mitigation activities and 

potential areas to carry out these activities, 

including activities that may have the 

greatest potential to restore and maintain the 

environmental functions affected by the 

[transportation] plan,’’ and that these 

planning-level discussions ‘‘shall be 

developed in consultation with Federal, 

State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, 

and regulatory agencies.’’ In addition, MPOs 

‘‘shall consult, as appropriate, with State and 

local agencies responsible for land use 

management, natural resources, 

environmental protection, conservation, and 

historic preservation concerning the 

development of a long-range transportation 

plan,’’ and that this consultation ‘‘shall 

involve, as appropriate, comparison of 

transportation plans with State conservation 

plans or maps, if available, or comparison of 

transportation plans to inventories of natural 

or historic resources, if available.’’ Similar 

SAFETEA–LU language addresses the 

development of the long-range statewide 

transportation plan, with the addition of 

Tribal conservation plans or maps to this 

planning-level ‘‘comparison.’’

In addition, section 6002 of the SAFETEA–

LU established several mechanisms for 

increased efficiency in environmental 

reviews for project decision-making. For 

example, the term ‘‘lead agency’’ collectively 

means the U. S. Department of 

Transportation and a State or local 

governmental entity serving as a joint lead 

agency for the NEPA process. In addition, the 

lead agency is responsible for inviting and 

designating ‘‘participating agencies’’ (i.e., 

other Federal or non-Federal agencies that 

may have an interest in the proposed 

project). Any Federal agency that is invited 

by the lead agency to participate in the 

environmental review process for a project 

shall be designated as a participating agency 

by the lead agency unless the invited agency 

informs the lead agency, in writing, by the 

deadline specified in the invitation that the 

invited agency: 

(a) Has no jurisdiction or authority with 

respect to the project; (b) has no expertise or 

information relevant to the project; and (c) 

does not intend to submit comments on the 

project. 

Past successful examples of using 

transportation planning products in NEPA 

analysis are based on early and continuous 

involvement of environmental, regulatory, 

and resource agencies. Without this early 

coordination, environmental, regulatory, and 

resource agencies are more likely to expect 

decisions made or analyses conducted in the 

transportation planning process to be 

revisited during the NEPA process. Early 

participation in transportation planning 

provides environmental, regulatory, and 

resource agencies better insight into the 

needs and objectives of the locality. 

Additionally, early participation provides an 

important opportunity for environmental, 

regulatory, and resource agency concerns to 

be identified and addressed early in the 

process, such as those related to permit 

applications. Moreover, Federal, Tribal, 

State, and local environmental, regulatory, 

and resource agencies are able to share data 

on particular resources, which can play a 

critical role in determining the feasibility of 

a transportation solution with respect to 

environmental impacts. The use of other 

agency planning outputs can result in a 

transportation project that could support 

multiple goals (transportation, 

environmental, and community). Further, 

planning decisions by these other agencies 

may have impacts on long-range 

transportation plans and/or the STIP/TIP, 

thereby providing important input to the 

transportation planning process and 

advancing integrated decision-making. 

4. What is the procedure for using 

decisions or analyses from the transportation 

planning process? 

The lead agencies jointly decide, and must 

agree, on what processes and consultation 

techniques are used to determine the 

transportation planning products that will be 

incorporated into the NEPA process. At a 

minimum, a robust scoping/early 

coordination process (which explains to 

Federal and State environmental, regulatory, 

and resource agencies and the public the 

information and/or analyses utilized to 

develop the planning products, how the 

purpose and need was developed and 

refined, and how the design concept and 

scope were determined) should play a critical 

role in leading to informed decisions by the 

lead agencies on the suitability of the 

transportation planning information, 

analyses, documents, and decisions for use in 

the NEPA process. As part of a rigorous 

scoping/early coordination process, the 

FHWA and the FTA should ensure that the 

transportation planning results are 

appropriately documented, shared, and used. 

5. To what extent can the FHWA/FTA 

provide up-front assurance that decisions 

and additional investments made in the 

transportation planning process will allow 

planning-level decisions and analyses to be 

used in the NEPA process? 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7282 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

There are no guarantees. However, the 

potential is greatly improved for 

transportation planning processes that 

address the ‘‘3–C’’ planning principles 

(comprehensive, cooperative, and 

continuous); incorporate the intent of NEPA 

through the consideration of natural, 

physical, and social effects; involve 

environmental, regulatory, and resource 

agencies; thoroughly document the 

transportation planning process information, 

analysis, and decision; and vet the planning 

results through the applicable public 

involvement processes. 

6. What considerations will the FHWA/ 

FTA take into account in their review of 

transportation planning products for 

acceptance in project development/NEPA? 

The FHWA and the FTA will give 

deference to decisions resulting from the 

transportation planning process if the FHWA 

and FTA determine that the planning process 

is consistent with the ‘‘3–C’’ planning 

principles and when the planning study 

process, alternatives considered, and 

resulting decisions have a rational basis that 

is thoroughly documented and vetted 

through the applicable public involvement 

processes. Moreover, any applicable 

program-specific requirements (e.g., those of 

the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program or the FTA’s Capital 

Investment Grant program) also must be met. 

The NEPA requires that the FHWA and the 

FTA be able to stand behind the overall 

soundness and credibility of analyses 

conducted and decisions made during the 

transportation planning process if they are 

incorporated into a NEPA document. For 

example, if systems-level or other broad 

objectives or choices from the transportation 

plan are incorporated into the purpose and 

need statement for a NEPA document, the 

FHWA and the FTA should not revisit 

whether these are the best objectives or 

choices among other options. Rather, the 

FHWA and the FTA review would include 

making sure that objectives or choices 

derived from the transportation plan were: 

Based on transportation planning factors 

established by Federal law; reflect a credible 

and articulated planning rationale; founded 

on reliable data; and developed through 

transportation planning processes meeting 

FHWA and FTA statutory and regulatory 

requirements. In addition, the basis for the 

goals and choices must be documented and 

included in the NEPA document. The 

FHWA/FTA reviewers do not need to review 

whether assumptions or analytical methods 

used in the studies are the best available, but, 

instead, need to assure that such assumptions 

or analytical methods are reasonable, 

scientifically acceptable, and consistent with 

goals, objectives, and policies set forth in 

long-range transportation plans. This review 

would include determining whether: (a) 

Assumptions have a rational basis and are 

up-to-date and (b) data, analytical methods, 

and modeling techniques are reliable, 

defensible, reasonably current, and meet data 

quality requirements. 

II. Substantive Issues 

General Issues To Be Considered: 

7. What should be considered in order to 

rely upon transportation planning studies in 

NEPA? 

The following questions should be 

answered prior to accepting studies 

conducted during the transportation 

planning process for use in NEPA. While not 

a ‘‘checklist,’’ these questions are intended to 

guide the practitioner’s analysis of the 

planning products: 

• How much time has passed since the 

planning studies and corresponding 

decisions were made? 

• Were the future year policy assumptions 

used in the transportation planning process 

related to land use, economic development, 

transportation costs, and network expansion 

consistent with those to be used in the NEPA 

process? 

• Is the information still relevant/valid? 

• What changes have occurred in the area 

since the study was completed? 

• Is the information in a format that can be 

appended to an environmental document or 

reformatted to do so? 

• Are the analyses in a planning-level 

report or document based on data, analytical 

methods, and modeling techniques that are 

reliable, defensible, and consistent with 

those used in other regional transportation 

studies and project development activities? 

• Were the FHWA and FTA, other 

agencies, and the public involved in the 

relevant planning analysis and the 

corresponding planning decisions? 

• Were the planning products available to 

other agencies and the public during NEPA 

scoping? 

• During NEPA scoping, was a clear 

connection between the decisions made in 

planning and those to be made during the 

project development stage explained to the 

public and others? What was the response? 

• Are natural resource and land use plans 

being informed by transportation planning 

products, and vice versa? 

Purpose and Need: 

8. How can transportation planning be 

used to shape a project’s purpose and need 

in the NEPA process? 

A sound transportation planning process is 

the primary source of the project purpose and 

need. Through transportation planning, State 

and local governments, with involvement of 

stakeholders and the public, establish a 

vision for the region’s future transportation 

system, define transportation goals and 

objectives for realizing that vision, decide 

which needs to address, and determine the 

timeframe for addressing these issues. The 

transportation planning process also provides 

a potential forum to define a project’s 

purpose and need by framing the scope of the 

problem to be addressed by a proposed 

project. This scope may be further refined 

during the transportation planning process as 

more information about the transportation 

need is collected and consultation with the 

public and other stakeholders clarifies other 

issues and goals for the region. 

23 U.S.C. 139(f), as amended by the 

SAFETEA–LU Section 6002, provides 

additional focus regarding the definition of 

the purpose and need and objectives. For 

example, the lead agency, as early as 

practicable during the environmental review 

process, shall provide an opportunity for 

involvement by participating agencies and 

the public in defining the purpose and need 

for a project. The statement of purpose and 

need shall include a clear statement of the 

objectives that the proposed action is 

intended to achieve, which may include: (a) 

Achieving a transportation objective 

identified in an applicable statewide or 

metropolitan transportation plan; (b) 

supporting land use, economic development, 

or growth objectives established in applicable 

Federal, State, local, or Tribal plans; and (c) 

serving national defense, national security, or 

other national objectives, as established in 

Federal laws, plans, or policies. 

The transportation planning process can be 

utilized to develop the purpose and need in 

the following ways: 

(a) Goals and objectives from the 

transportation planning process may be part 

of the project’s purpose and need statement; 

(b) A general travel corridor or general 

mode or modes (e.g., highway, transit, or a 

highway/transit combination) resulting from 

planning analyses may be part of the project’s 

purpose and need statement; 

(c) If the financial plan for a metropolitan 

transportation plan indicates that funding for 

a specific project will require special funding 

sources (e.g., tolls or public-private 

financing), such information may be 

included in the purpose and need statement; 

or 

(d) The results of analyses from 

management systems (e.g., congestion, 

pavement, bridge, and/or safety) may shape 

the purpose and need statement. 

The use of these planning-level goals and 

choices must be appropriately explained 

during NEPA scoping and in the NEPA 

document. 

Consistent with NEPA, the purpose and 

need statement should be a statement of a 

transportation problem, not a specific 

solution. However, the purpose and need 

statement should be specific enough to 

generate alternatives that may potentially 

yield real solutions to the problem at-hand. 

A purpose and need statement that yields 

only one alternative may indicate a purpose 

and need that is too narrowly defined. 

Short of a fully integrated transportation 

decisionmaking process, many State DOTs 

develop information for their purpose and 

need statements when implementing 

interagency NEPA/Section 404 process 

merger agreements. These agreements may 

need to be expanded to include commitments 

to share and utilize transportation planning 

products when developing a project’s 

purpose and need. 

9. Under what conditions can the NEPA 

process be initiated in conjunction with 

transportation planning studies? 

The NEPA process may be initiated in 

conjunction with transportation planning 

studies in a number of ways. A common 

method is the ‘‘tiered EIS,’’ in which the firsttier EIS evaluates general travel corridors, 

modes, and/or packages of projects at a 

planning level of detail, leading to the 

refinement of purpose and need and, ideally, 

selection of the design concept and scope for 

a project or series of projects. Subsequently, 

second-tier NEPA review(s) of the resulting 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7283 

projects would be performed in the usual 

way. The first-tier EIS uses the NEPA process 

as a tool to involve environmental, 

regulatory, and resource agencies and the 

public in the planning decisions, as well as 

to ensure the appropriate consideration of 

environmental factors in these planning 

decisions. 

Corridor or subarea analyses/studies are 

another option when the long-range 

transportation plan leaves open the 

possibility of multiple approaches to fulfill 

its goals and objectives. In such cases, the 

formal NEPA process could be initiated 

through publication of a NOI in conjunction 

with a corridor or subarea planning study. 

Similarly, some public transportation 

operators developing major capital projects 

perform the mandatory planning Alternatives 

Analysis required for funding under FTA’s 

Capital Investment Grant program [49 U.S.C. 

5309(d) and (e)] within the NEPA process 

and combine the planning Alternatives 

Analysis with the draft EIS. 

Alternatives: 

10. In the context of this Appendix, what 

is the meaning of the term ‘‘alternatives’’? 

This Appendix uses the term 

‘‘alternatives’’ as specified in the NEPA 

regulations (40 CFR 1502.14), where it is 

defined in its broadest sense to include 

everything from major modal alternatives and 

location alternatives to minor design changes 

that would mitigate adverse impacts. This 

Appendix does not use the term as it is used 

in many other contexts (e.g., ‘‘prudent and 

feasible alternatives’’ under Section 4(f) of 

the Department of Transportation Act, the 

‘‘Least Environmentally Damaging 

Practicable Alternative’’ under the Clean 

Water Act, or the planning Alternatives 

Analysis in 49 U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e)). 

11. Under what circumstances can 

alternatives be eliminated from detailed 

consideration during the NEPA process based 

on information and analysis from the 

transportation planning process? 

There are two ways in which the 

transportation planning process can begin 

limiting the alternative solutions to be 

evaluated during the NEPA process: (a) 

Shaping the purpose and need for the project; 

or (b) evaluating alternatives during planning 

studies and eliminating some of the 

alternatives from detailed study in the NEPA 

process prior to its start. Each approach 

requires careful attention, and is summarized 

below. 

(a) Shaping the Purpose and Need for the 

Project: The transportation planning process 

should shape the purpose and need and, 

thereby, the range of reasonable alternatives. 

With proper documentation and public 

involvement, a purpose and need derived 

from the planning process can legitimately 

narrow the alternatives analyzed in the NEPA 

process. See the response to Question 8 for 

further discussion on how the planning 

process can shape the purpose and need used 

in the NEPA process. 

For example, the purpose and need may be 

shaped by the transportation planning 

process in a manner that consequently 

narrows the range of alternatives that must be 

considered in detail in the NEPA document 

when: 

(1) The transportation planning process has 

selected a general travel corridor as best 

addressing identified transportation 

problems and the rationale for the 

determination in the planning document is 

reflected in the purpose and need statement 

of the subsequent NEPA document; 

(2) The transportation planning process has 

selected a general mode (e.g., highway, 

transit, or a highway/transit combination) 

that accomplishes its goals and objectives, 

and these documented determinations are 

reflected in the purpose and need statement 

of the subsequent NEPA document; or 

(3) The transportation planning process 

determines that the project needs to be 

funded by tolls or other non-traditional 

funding sources in order for the long-range 

transportation plan to be fiscally constrained 

or identifies goals and objectives that can 

only be met by toll roads or other nontraditional funding sources, and that 

determination of those goals and objectives is 

reflected in the purpose and need statement 

of the subsequent NEPA document. 

(b) Evaluating and Eliminating Alternatives 

During the Transportation Planning Process: 

The evaluation and elimination of 

alternatives during the transportation 

planning process can be incorporated by 

reference into a NEPA document under 

certain circumstances. In these cases, the 

planning study becomes part of the NEPA 

process and provides a basis for screening 

out alternatives. As with any part of the 

NEPA process, the analysis of alternatives to 

be incorporated from the process must have 

a rational basis that has been thoroughly 

documented (including documentation of the 

necessary and appropriate vetting through 

the applicable public involvement 

processes). This record should be made 

available for public review during the NEPA 

scoping process. 

See responses to Questions 4, 5, 6, and 7 

for additional elements to consider with 

respect to acceptance of planning products 

for NEPA documentation and the response to 

Question 12 on the information or analysis 

from the transportation planning process 

necessary for supporting the elimination of 

an alternative(s) from detailed consideration 

in the NEPA process. 

For instance, under FTA’s Capital 

Investment Grant program, the alternatives 

considered in the NEPA process may be 

narrowed in those instances that the 

planning Alternatives Analysis required by 

49 U.S.C. 5309(e) is conducted as a planning 

study prior to the NEPA review. In fact, the 

FTA may be able to narrow the alternatives 

considered in detail in the NEPA document 

to the No-Build (No Action) alternative and 

the Locally Preferred Alternative. 

Alternatives must meet the following criteria 

if they are deemed sufficiently considered by 

a planning Alternatives Analysis under 

FTA’s Capital Investment Grant program 

conducted prior to NEPA without a 

programmatic NEPA analysis and 

documentation: 

• During the planning Alternatives 

Analysis, all of the reasonable alternatives 

under consideration must be fully evaluated 

in terms of their transportation impacts; 

capital and operating costs; social, economic, 

and environmental impacts; and technical 

considerations; 

• There must be appropriate public 

involvement in the planning Alternatives 

Analysis; 

• The appropriate Federal, State, and local 

environmental, regulatory, and resource 

agencies must be engaged in the planning 

Alternatives Analysis; 

• The results of the planning Alternatives 

Analysis must be documented; 

• The NEPA scoping participants must 

agree on the alternatives that will be 

considered in the NEPA review; and 

• The subsequent NEPA document must 

include the evaluation of alternatives from 

the planning Alternatives Analysis. 

The above criteria apply specifically to 

FTA’s Capital Investment Grant process. 

However, for other transportation projects, if 

the planning process has included the 

analysis and stakeholder involvement that 

would be undertaken in a first tier NEPA 

process, then the alternatives screening 

conducted in the transportation planning 

process may be incorporated by reference, 

described, and relied upon in the projectlevel NEPA document. At that point, the 

project-level NEPA analysis can focus on the 

remaining alternatives. 

12. What information or analysis from the 

transportation planning process is needed in 

an EA or EIS to support the elimination of 

an alternative(s) from detailed consideration? 

The section of the EA or EIS that discusses 

alternatives considered but eliminated from 

detailed consideration should: 

(a) Identify any alternatives eliminated 

during the transportation planning process 

(this could include broad categories of 

alternatives, as when a long-range 

transportation plan selects a general travel 

corridor based on a corridor study, thereby 

eliminating all alternatives along other 

alignments); 

(b) Briefly summarize the reasons for 

eliminating the alternative; and 

(c) Include a summary of the analysis 

process that supports the elimination of 

alternatives (the summary should reference 

the relevant sections or pages of the analysis 

or study) and incorporate it by reference or 

append it to the NEPA document. 

Any analyses or studies used to eliminate 

alternatives from detailed consideration 

should be made available to the public and 

participating agencies during the NEPA 

scoping process and should be reasonably 

available during comment periods. 

Alternatives passed over during the 

transportation planning process because they 

are infeasible or do not meet the NEPA 

‘‘purpose and need’’ can be omitted from the 

detailed analysis of alternatives in the NEPA 

document, as long as the rationale for 

elimination is explained in the NEPA 

document. Alternatives that remain 

‘‘reasonable’’ after the planning-level analysis 

must be addressed in the EIS, even when 

they are not the preferred alternative. When 

the proposed action evaluated in an EA 

involves unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources, NEPA 

requires that appropriate alternatives be 

studied, developed, and described. 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7284 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

13. What types of planning products 

provide analysis of the affected environment 

and environmental consequences that are 

useful in a project-level NEPA analysis and 

document? 

The following planning products are 

valuable inputs to the discussion of the 

affected environment and environmental 

consequences (both its current state and 

future state in the absence of the proposed 

action) in the project-level NEPA analysis 

and document: 

• Regional development and growth 

analyses; 

• Local land use, growth management, or 

development plans; and 

• Population and employment projections. 

The following are types of information, 

analysis, and other products from the 

transportation planning process that can be 

used in the discussion of the affected 

environment and environmental 

consequences in an EA or EIS: 

(a) Geographic information system (GIS) 

overlays showing the past, current, or 

predicted future conditions of the natural 

and built environments; 

(b) Environmental scans that identify 

environmental resources and 

environmentally sensitive areas; 

(c) Descriptions of airsheds and 

watersheds; 

(d) Demographic trends and forecasts; 

(e) Projections of future land use, natural 

resource conservation areas, and 

development; and 

(f) The outputs of natural resource 

planning efforts, such as wildlife 

conservation plans, watershed plans, special 

area management plans, and multiple species 

habitat conservation plans. 

However, in most cases, the assessment of 

the affected environment and environmental 

consequences conducted during the 

transportation planning process will not be 

detailed or current enough to meet NEPA 

standards and, thus, the inventory and 

evaluation of affected resources and the 

analysis of consequences of the alternatives 

will need to be supplemented with more 

refined analysis and possibly site-specific 

details during the NEPA process. 

14. What information from the 

transportation planning process is useful in 

describing a baseline for the NEPA analysis 

of indirect and cumulative impacts? 

Because the nature of the transportation 

planning process is to look broadly at future 

land use, development, population increases, 

and other growth factors, the planning 

analysis can provide the basis for the 

assessment of indirect and cumulative 

impacts required under NEPA. The 

consideration in the transportation planning 

process of development, growth, and 

consistency with local land use, growth 

management, or development plans, as well 

as population and employment projections, 

provides an overview of the multitude of 

factors in an area that are creating pressures 

not only on the transportation system, but on 

the natural ecosystem and important 

environmental and community resources. An 

analysis of all reasonably foreseeable actions 

in the area also should be a part of the 

transportation planning process. This 

planning-level information should be 

captured and utilized in the analysis of 

indirect and cumulative impacts during the 

NEPA process. 

To be used in the analysis of indirect and 

cumulative impacts, such information 

should: 

(a) Be sufficiently detailed that differences 

in consequences of alternatives can be 

readily identified; 

(b) Be based on current data (e.g., data from 

the most recent Census) or be updated by 

additional information; 

(c) Be based on reasonable assumptions 

that are clearly stated; and/or 

(d) Rely on analytical methods and 

modeling techniques that are reliable, 

defensible, and reasonably current. 

Environmental Mitigation: 

15. How can planning-level efforts best 

support advance mitigation, mitigation 

banking, and priorities for environmental 

mitigation investments? 

A lesson learned from efforts to establish 

mitigation banks and advance mitigation 

agreements and alternative mitigation 

options is the importance of beginning 

interagency discussions during the 

transportation planning process. 

Development pressures, habitat alteration, 

complicated real estate transactions, and 

competition for potential mitigation sites by 

public and private project proponents can 

encumber the already difficult task of 

mitigating for ‘‘like’’ value and function and 

reinforce the need to examine mitigation 

strategies as early as possible. 

Robust use of remote sensing, GIS, and 

decision support systems for evaluating 

conservation strategies are all contributing to 

the advancement of natural resource and 

environmental planning. The outputs from 

environmental planning can now better 

inform transportation planning processes, 

including the development of mitigation 

strategies, so that transportation and 

conservation goals can be optimally met. For 

example, long-range transportation plans can 

be screened to assess the effect of general 

travel corridors or density, on the viability of 

sensitive plant and animal species or 

habitats. This type of screening provides a 

basis for early collaboration among 

transportation and environmental staffs, the 

public, and regulatory agencies to explore 

areas where impacts must be avoided and 

identify areas for mitigation investments. 

This can lead to mitigation strategies that are 

both more economical and more effective 

from an environmental stewardship 

perspective than traditional project-specific 

mitigation measures. 

III. Administrative Issues: 

16. Are Federal funds eligible to pay for 

these additional, or more in depth, 

environmental studies in transportation 

planning? 

Yes. For example, the following FHWA 

and FTA funds may be utilized for 

conducting environmental studies and 

analyses within transportation planning: 

• FHWA planning and research funds, as 

defined under 23 CFR Part 420 (e.g., 

Metropolitan Planning (PL), Statewide 

Planning and Research (SPR), National 

Highway System (NHS), Surface 

Transportation Program (STP), and Equity 

Bonus); and 

• FTA planning and research funds (49 

U.S.C. 5303 and 49 U.S.C. 5313(b)), urban 

formula funds (49 U.S.C. 5307), and (in 

limited circumstances) transit capital 

investment funds (49 U.S.C. 5309). 

The eligible transportation planningrelated uses of these funds may include: (a) 

Conducting feasibility or subarea/corridor 

needs studies and (b) developing systemwide environmental information/inventories 

(e.g., wetland banking inventories or 

standards to identify historically significant 

sites). Particularly in the case of PL and SPR 

funds, the proposed expenditure must be 

closely related to the development of 

transportation plans and programs under 23 

U.S.C. 134–135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303–5306. 

For FHWA funding programs, once a 

general travel corridor or specific project has 

progressed to a point in the preliminary 

engineering/NEPA phase that clearly extends 

beyond transportation planning, additional 

in-depth environmental studies must be 

funded through the program category for 

which the ultimate project qualifies (e.g., 

NHS, STP, Interstate Maintenance, and/or 

Bridge), rather than PL or SPR funds. 

Another source of funding is FHWA’s 

Transportation Enhancement program, which 

may be used for activities such as: 

conducting archeological planning and 

research; developing inventories such as 

those for historic bridges and highways, and 

other surface transportation-related 

structures; conducting studies to determine 

the extent of water pollution due to highway 

runoff; and conducting studies to reduce 

vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while 

maintaining habitat connectivity. 

The FHWA and the FTA encourage State 

DOTs, MPOs, and public transportation 

operators to seek partners for some of these 

studies from environmental, regulatory, and 

resource agencies, non-government 

organizations, and other government and 

private sector entities with similar data 

needs, or environmental interests. In some 

cases, these partners may contribute data and 

expertise to the studies, as well as funding. 

17. What staffing or organizational 

arrangements may be helpful in allowing 

planning products to be accepted in the 

NEPA process? 

Certain organizational and staffing 

arrangements may support a more integrated 

approach to the planning/NEPA decisionmaking continuum. In many cases, planning 

organizations do not have environmental 

expertise on staff or readily accessible. 

Likewise, the review and regulatory 

responsibilities of many environmental, 

regulatory, and resource agencies make 

involvement in the transportation planning 

process a challenge for staff resources. These 

challenges may be partially met by improved 

use of the outputs of each agency’s planning 

resources and by augmenting their 

capabilities through greater use of GIS and 

remote sensing technologies (see http:// 

www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/ for additional 

information on the use of GIS). Sharing 

databases and the planning products of local 

land use decision-makers and State and 

Federal environmental, regulatory, and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 7285 

resource agencies also provide efficiencies in 

acquiring and sharing the data and 

information needed for both transportation 

planning and NEPA work. 

Additional opportunities such as shared 

staff, training across disciplines, and (in 

some cases) reorganizing to eliminate 

structural divisions between planning and 

NEPA practitioners may also need to be 

considered in order to better integrate NEPA 

considerations into transportation planning 

studies. The answers to the following two 

questions also contain useful information on 

training and staffing opportunities. 

18. How have environmental, regulatory, 

and resource agency liaisons (Federally- and 

State DOT-funded positions) and partnership 

agreements been used to provide the 

expertise and interagency participation 

needed to enhance the consideration of 

environmental factors in the planning 

process? 

For several years, States have utilized 

Federal and State transportation funds to 

support focused and accelerated project 

review by a variety of local, State, Tribal, and 

Federal agencies. While Section 1309(e) of 

the TEA–21 and its successor in SAFETEA–

LU section 6002 speak specifically to 

transportation project streamlining, there are 

other authorities that have been used to fund 

positions, such as the Intergovernmental 

Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. 6505). In 

addition, long-term, on-call consultant 

contracts can provide backfill support for 

staff that are detailed to other parts of an 

agency for temporary assignments. At last 

count (as of 2003), 246 positions were being 

funded. Additional information on 

interagency funding agreements is available 

at: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/ 

igdocs/index.htm. 

Moreover, every State has advanced a 

variety of stewardship and streamlining 

initiatives that necessitate early involvement 

of environmental, regulatory, and resource 

agencies in the project development process. 

Such process improvements have: addressed 

the exchange of data to support avoidance 

and impact analysis; established formal and 

informal consultation and review schedules; 

advanced mitigation strategies; and resulted 

in a variety of programmatic reviews. 

Interagency agreements and workplans have 

evolved to describe performance objectives, 

as well as specific roles and responsibilities 

related to new streamlining initiatives. Some 

States have improved collaboration and 

efficiency by co-locating environmental, 

regulatory, and resource and transportation 

agency staff. 

19. What training opportunities are 

available to MPOs, State DOTs, public 

transportation operators and environmental, 

regulatory, and resource agencies to assist in 

their understanding of the transportation 

planning and NEPA processes? 

Both the FHWA and the FTA offer a variety 

of transportation planning, public 

involvement, and NEPA courses through the 

National Highway Institute and/or the 

National Transit Institute. Of particular note 

is the Linking Planning and NEPA 

Workshop, which provides a forum and 

facilitated group discussion among and 

between State DOT; MPO; Federal, Tribal, 

and State environmental, regulatory, and 

resource agencies; and FHWA/FTA 

representatives (at both the executive and 

program manager levels) to develop a Statespecific action plan that will provide for 

strengthened linkages between the 

transportation planning and NEPA processes. 

Moreover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service offers Green Infrastructure 

Workshops that are focused on integrating 

planning for natural resources (‘‘green 

infrastructure’’) with the development, 

economic, and other infrastructure needs of 

society (‘‘gray infrastructure’’). 

Robust planning and multi-issue 

environmental screening requires input from 

a wide variety of disciplines, including 

information technology; transportation 

planning; the NEPA process; and regulatory, 

permitting, and environmental specialty 

areas (e.g., noise, air quality, and biology). 

Senior managers at transportation and 

partner agencies can arrange a variety of 

individual training programs to support 

learning curves and skill development that 

contribute to a strengthened link of the 

transportation planning and NEPA processes. 

Formal and informal mentoring on an intraagency basis can be arranged. Employee 

exchanges within and between agencies can 

be periodically scheduled, and persons 

involved with professional leadership 

programs can seek temporary assignments 

with partner agencies. 

IV. Additional Information on this Topic 

Valuable sources of information are 

FHWA’s environment website (http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/index.htm) 

and FTA’s environmental streamlining 

website (http:// 

www.environment.fta.dot.gov). Another 

source of information and case studies is 

NCHRP Report 8–38 (Consideration of 

Environmental Factors in Transportation 

Systems Planning), which is available at 

http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/ 

NCHRP+8–38. In addition, AASHTO’s Center 

for Environmental Excellence website is 

continuously updated with news and links to 

information of interest to transportation and 

environmental professionals 

(www.transportation.environment.org). 

PART 500—MANAGEMENT AND 

MONITORING SYSTEMS 

■ 2. Revise the authority citation for part 

500 to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 303, and 

315; 49 U.S.C. 5303–5305; 23 CFR 1.32; and 

49 CFR 1.48 and 1.51. 

■ 3. Revise § 500.109 to read as follows: 

§ 500.109 CMS. 

(a) For purposes of this part, 

congestion means the level at which 

transportation system performance is 

unacceptable due to excessive travel 

times and delays. Congestion 

management means the application of 

strategies to improve system 

performance and reliability by reducing 

the adverse impacts of congestion on the 

movement of people and goods in a 

region. A congestion management 

system or process is a systematic and 

regionally accepted approach for 

managing congestion that provides 

accurate, up-to-date information on 

transportation system operations and 

performance and assesses alternative 

strategies for congestion management 

that meet State and local needs. 

(b) The development of a congestion 

management system or process should 

result in performance measures and 

strategies that can be integrated into 

transportation plans and programs. The 

level of system performance deemed 

acceptable by State and local officials 

may vary by type of transportation 

facility, geographic location 

(metropolitan area or subarea and/or 

non-metropolitan area), and/or time of 

day. In both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, consideration needs 

to be given to strategies that manage 

demand, reduce single occupant vehicle 

(SOV) travel, and improve 

transportation system management and 

operations. Where the addition of 

general purpose lanes is determined to 

be an appropriate congestion 

management strategy, explicit 

consideration is to be given to the 

incorporation of appropriate features 

into the SOV project to facilitate future 

demand management strategies and 

operational improvements that will 

maintain the functional integrity of 

those lanes. 

Title 49—Transportation 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 613 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 217(g); 

42 U.S.C. 3334, 4233, 4332, 7410 et seq; 49 

U.S.C. 5303–5306, 5323(k); and 49 CFR 

1.48(b), 1.51(f) and 21.7(a). 

■ 5. Revise Subpart A and Subpart B of 

49 CFR part 613 to read as follows: 

Part 613—METROPOLITAN AND 

STATEWIDE PLANNING 

Subpart A—Metropolitan Transportation 

Planning and Programming 

Sec. 

613.100 Metropolitan transportation 

planning and programming. 

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation 

Planning and Programming 

Sec. 

613.200 Statewide transportation planning 

and programming. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
7286 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart A—Metropolitan 

Transportation Planning and 

Programming 

§ 613.100 Metropolitan transportation 

planning and programming. 

The regulations in 23 CFR 450, 

subpart C, shall be followed in 

complying with the requirements of this 

subpart. The definitions in 23 CFR 450, 

subpart A, shall apply. 

Subpart B—Statewide Transportation 

Planning and Programming 

§ 613.200 Statewide transportation 

planning and programming. 

The regulations in 23 CFR 450, 

subpart B, shall be followed in 

complying with the requirements of this 

subpart. The definitions in 23 CFR 450, 

subpart A, shall apply. 

[FR Doc. 07–493 Filed 2–13–07 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES