Source: http://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0037-0001
Timestamp: 2015-10-08 20:12:03
Document Index: 649664414

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450', 'art 450', 'art 450', '§ 450', 'art 93', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 450']

Skip Navigation HomeHelpResourcesContact Us Advanced Search Start of Main Content Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)For related information, Open Docket Folder Show agency attachment(s) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0037; FHWA RIN 2125-AF52; FTA RIN 2132-AB10]
AgencyFederal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
SummaryThe FHWA and the FTA are jointly issuing this NPRM to propose revisions to the regulations governing the development of metropolitan transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas, State transportation plans and programs, and the congestion management process. The changes reflect recent passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The MAP-21 continues many provisions related to transportation planning from prior laws; however, it introduces transformational changes and adds some new provisions. The proposed rule would make the regulations consistent with current statutory requirements and proposes the following: A new mandate for State departments of transportation (States) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to take a performance-based approach to planning and programming; a new emphasis on the nonmetropolitan transportation planning process, by requiring States to have a higher level of involvement with nonmetropolitan local officials and providing a process for the creation of regional transportation planning organizations (RTPO); a structural change to the membership of the larger MPOs; a new framework for voluntary scenario planning; revisions to the integration of the planning and environmental review process; and a process for programmatic mitigation plans.
DatesComments must be received on or before September 2, 2014. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
AddressesMail or hand deliver comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). You may review the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement in theFederal Registerpublished on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).
Electronic Access and FilingThis document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: https://www.federalregister.gov. For Further Information ContactFor the FHWA: Mr. Harlan W. Miller, Planning Oversight and Stewardship Team (HEPP-10), (202) 366-0847; or Ms. Anne Christenson, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-1356. For the FTA: Ms. Sherry Riklin, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 366-5407; Mr. Dwayne Weeks, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 493-0316; or Mr. Christopher Hall, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-5218. Both agencies are located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t. for FHWA, and 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., e.t. for FTA, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Supplementary InformationTable of Contents forI. Executive Summary
III. Major Proposed Revisions to the Planning Rule
V. Regulatory Analyses and NoticesI. Executive SummaryA. Purpose of the Regulatory ActionThe MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) transforms the Federal-aid highway program and the Federal transit program by requiring a transition to performance-driven, outcome-based approaches to key areas. With respect to planning, although MAP-21 leaves the basic framework of the planning process largely untouched, the statute introduces critical changes to the planning process itself by requiring States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation to link investment priorities (the transportation improvement program of projects) to the achievement of performance targets that they would establish to address performance measures in the key areas such as safety, infrastructure condition, congestion, system reliability, emissions, and freight movement.
Accordingly, this proposed rule is central to the implementation of the overall performance management framework created by MAP-21. Additional changes include a new emphasis on nonmetropolitan transportation planning, changes to the structure of MPOs that serve a transportation management area (TMA), and codification of some existing best practices.B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in QuestionAs a fundamental element of a performance management framework, States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation will need to establish targets in key national performance areas to document expectations for future performance. This NPRM proposes in 23 CFR 450.206 and 450.306 that States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation coordinate their targets. The MAP-21 requires that MPOs reflect those targets in their metropolitan transportation plan and encourages States to do the same in their long-range statewide transportation plan. Accordingly, this NPRM proposes that MPOs would reflect those targets in the metropolitan transportation plans. In addition, FHWA and FTA propose that States should reflect the targets in their long-range statewide transportation plans. Both States and MPOs would describe the anticipated effect toward achieving the targets in their respective transportation improvement programs.
In addition to these proposed changes to the planning provisions, MAP-21 contains new performance-related provisions requiring States, MPOs, and public transportation providers todevelop other performance-based plans and processes. This NPRM proposes in §§ 450.206 and 450.306 that MPOs and States must integrate the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets of other performance-based plans and processes into their planning processes.
This proposal also places a new emphasis on the importance of nonmetropolitan transportation planning. Proposed §§ 450.208 through 450.210 and 450.216 require the States to work more closely with nonmetropolitan areas. Additionally, this NPRM proposes that States should have the option of designating RTPOs to help address the planning needs of the nonmetropolitan areas of the State.
The MAP-21 made two changes specific to the metropolitan planning process. The first change affects the policy board structure of large MPOs. For each MPO serving a TMA, the planning statutes and current planning regulations identify a list of government or agency officials that must be on that policy board. Consistent with MAP-21, this NPRM proposes in § 450.310 to add representation by providers of public transportation to this list of officials. The second change proposes in § 450.324 of this NPRM that MPOs may use scenario planning, an analytical framework to inform decisionmakers about the implications of various investments and policies on transportation system condition and performance, during the development of their plan. Both of these proposed changes will support the effective implementation of a performance-based planning process.
In addition to changing the planning statutes, MAP-21 continues efforts to expedite project delivery through better coordination between the transportation planning process and the environmental review process. Section 1310 of MAP-21 creates an additional process for integrating planning and the environmental review activities, but also preserves other authorities for integration. Sections 450.212 and 450.318 of the planning regulations are among those pre-MAP-21 authorities. Together with implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (1)
adopted by the President's Council on Environmental Quality (2)
and the FHWA and FTA, (3)
§§ 450.212 and 450.318 have long provided pathways for using transportation planning information and decisions in the environmental review process. With one exception, FHWA and FTA propose to retain the existing regulatory provisions in §§ 450.212 and 450.318, as well as the guidance in Appendix A. The agencies will address implementation of section 1310 of MAP-21 and any needed updates to provisions on pre-MAP-21 integration authorities through separate rulemaking or guidance. The exception is the proposed deletion of paragraph (d) of § 450.318 due to revisions made to 49 U.S.C. 5309 by MAP-21 (references to mandatory Alternatives Analysis within Appendix A are also proposed to be removed consistent with those changes). More specifically, MAP-21 removed the requirement for a stand-alone alternatives analysis for projects that seek section 5309(d) or (e) funding. In addition, the proposed new sections 450.214 and 450.320 would provide guidance on the optional development of programmatic mitigation plans for use during the project development and environmental review process.
Summary—Key Changes Proposed to the Planning Rule by This NPRM
Proposed changeDescriptionKey regulatory section(s)
Performance Based Planning and ProgrammingThe statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes shall provide for the use of a performance-based approach to transportation decisionmaking to support the national goals described in 23 U.S.C. 150(b) and the general purposes described in 29 U.S.C. 5301. These processes are where decisionmaking and investment priorities would be linked to targets in key areas. See 23 U.S.C. 150 and 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 532923 CFR 450.206(c), 23 CFR 450.208(g), 23 CFR 450.216(f), 23 CFR 450.218(r), 23 CFR 450.226, 23 CFR 450.300(a), 23 CFR 450.306(a), 23 CFR 450.306(d), 23 CFR 450.314(a), 23 CFR 450.314(e), 23 CFR 450.314(g), 23 CFR 450.324(f)(3), 23 CFR 450.324(f)(4), 23 CFR 450.324(i)(1)(iii), 23 CFR 450.324(i)(2), 23 CFR 450.326(c), 23 CFR 450.326(d), 23 CFR 450.340.
New emphasis on the importance of nonmetropolitan transportation planningA State may establish and designate Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs)State consultation with nonmetropolitan local officials in the statewide planning process becomes State cooperation with nonmetropolitan local officials or, if appropriate, RTPOs23 CFR 450.210(d).23 CFR 450.208(a)(4), 23 CFR 450.210(b), 23 CFR 450.216(g), 23 CFR 450.218(c), 23 CFR 45.222(c).
Changes specific to the metropolitan planning processMPOs that serve an area designated as a TMA shall include representation by providers of public transportationMPOs may use scenario planning during the development of their plan23 CFR 450.310(d)(1)(ii).23 CFR 450.324(i).
Programmatic MitigationStates and MPOs may develop programmatic mitigation plans to address potential environmental impacts of future transportation projects as part of the statewide or metropolitan transportation planning process23 CFR 450.214, 23 CFR 450.320.
C. Costs and BenefitsThe FHWA and FTA expect that the proposed regulatory changes to the planning process would improve decisionmaking through increased transparency and accountability and support the national goals described in 23 U.S.C. 150(b) and the general purposes described in 49 U.S.C. 5301. The FHWA and FTA have not been able to find data or empirical studies to assist it in monetizing or quantifying the benefits of this NPRM. In addition, estimates of the benefits of this NPRM would be difficult to develop. The proposed rule would promote transparency by requiring the establishment of performance targets in key areas, such as safety, infrastructure condition, system reliability, emissions,and congestion, and by expressly linking investment decisions to the achievement of such targets. This would be documented in plans or programs developed with public review. The proposal would establish accountability through mandating reports on progress toward meeting those targets.
Other elements of the proposal also would improve decisionmaking, such as representation by providers of public transportation on each MPO that serves a TMA, updating the metropolitan planning agreements, requiring States to have a higher level of involvement with nonmetropolitan local officials, and providing an optional process for the creation of RTPOs.
The FHWA and FTA estimate the total cost of this proposed rule is $30.8 million annually. To implement the proposed changes in support of a more efficient, performance-based planning process, FHWA and FTA estimate that the aggregate increase in costs attributable to the proposed rulemaking for all 52 States (4)
and 420 (estimated) MPOs is approximately $28.3 million per year. These costs are primarily attributable to an increase in staff time needed to meet the proposed requirements. For the estimated 600 total providers of public transportation that operate within metropolitan planning areas, the cost would be $2.4 million per year in total. The total Federal, State, and local cost of the planning program is $1,166,471,400. As the cost burden of this rule is estimated to be 2.6 percent of the total planning program, FHWA and FTA believe the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal and the benefits of implementing this rulemaking would outweigh the costs.
Summary of Average Annual Regulatory Costs and Burden Hours of Effort
EntityTotaladditionalcostNon-Federalshare(20%)Averageadditionalperson hoursper agency
TMA MPOs (210)$18,402,300$3,680,5001,800
Non-TMA MPOs (210)3,909,200781,800400
States (52)6,075,8001,215,2002400
Providers of Public Transportation (600)2,440,000488,000100
Total30,827,3006,165,500 II. Background1. Introduction to the Planning ProcessThe Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning program and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning program provide funding to support cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive (3-C) planning for making transportation investment decisions throughout each State—both in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Since the 1962 Federal-aid Highway Act, (5)
Federal authorizing legislation for expenditure of surface transportation funds has required metropolitan and statewide transportation plans and transportation improvement programs to be developed through a 3-C planning process. Over successive reauthorization cycles, including the passage of MAP-21 in July 2012, Congress has revised and expanded the requirements for 3-C planning.States must undertake a 3-C statewide transportation planning process to develop a multimodal long-range statewide transportation plan and a statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). (6)
The long-range statewide transportation plan must provide for the development of transportation facilities that function as an intermodal State transportation system and must cover at least a 20-year planning horizon at the time of adoption by the State. There is not a required update cycle for the long-range statewide transportation plan. When developing a plan, States need to cooperate with the MPOs in the metropolitan areas. In nonmetropolitan areas, States must cooperate with local elected officials who have the responsibility for transportation. Some States may have regional planning organizations to help support the planning process in nonmetropolitan areas. States also must provide an opportunity for public comment on the long-range statewide transportation plan. As part of public engagement, FHWA and FTA encourage States to include minority and low-income populations and otherwise incorporate environmental justice principles into the statewide and nonmetropolitan planning process and documents as appropriate.
In addition, States must develop a federally approved STIP at least once every 4 years. The STIP contains a 4-year program of projects, and must be consistent with the long-range statewide and metropolitan transportation plans. The STIP must incorporate the transportation improvement programs (TIPs) developed by MPOs either directly or by reference without alteration. Finally, the STIP must identify the source of funding that is reasonably expected to be available to support the program of projects in the STIP. When the State submits the STIP to FHWA and FTA for approval, the State must certify that the metropolitan and statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning processes are in compliance with applicable requirements. The FHWA and FTA will approve the STIP if they jointly determine that the STIP substantially meets the statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning requirements.Metropolitan transportation planning occurs in urbanized areas with a population of 50,000 or greater. (7)
An MPO is the policy board of the organization created and designated by the Governor and local officials to carry out the metropolitan planning process in an urbanized area. The boundary of the metropolitan planning area covered by the MPO planning process is established by agreement between the Governor and the MPO and, in general, encompasses the current urbanized areaand the area to be urbanized during a 20-year forecast period. Certain urbanized areas—generally those over 200,000 in population—are designated as TMAs.
An MPO establishes the investment priorities of Federal transportation funds in its metropolitan areas through the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP. Each MPO, regardless of size, must prepare a metropolitan transportation plan and update it every 4 or 5 years. The plan must cover at least a 20-year planning horizon at the time of adoption by the MPO. Before it adopts its plan, the MPO must provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment on the plan's content. As part of public engagement, FHWA and FTA encourage MPOs to include minority and low-income populations and otherwise incorporate environmental justice principles into the metropolitan planning process and documents as appropriate.
The MPO, in cooperation with the State and providers of public transportation, must also develop a TIP. The TIP is a prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of 4 years, and must include a financial plan that describes the source of funding that would be reasonably expected to be available to support the projects in the TIP. The MPO must update and approve the TIP at least once every 4 years. Prior to approving the TIP, the MPO must provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment on the TIP. The TIP also is subject to approval by the Governor. When the MPO submits the TIP to the State, the MPO must certify that the metropolitan transportation planning process is in compliance with applicable requirements.
In the TMAs, the metropolitan transportation planning process also must include a congestion management process (CMP). (8)
The CMP provides for the effective management of new and existing transportation facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational strategies.
The FHWA and FTA must certify the transportation planning process in TMAs at least once every 4 years. During that certification process, FHWA and FTA will review whether the process complies with the metropolitan transportation planning requirements, including the new MAP-21 requirements.2. What Does MAP-21 Do?The MAP-21 leaves the basic framework of the planning process, as described above, largely untouched. However, MAP-21 introduces transformational changes to the planning process to increase transparency and accountability. (9)
Most significantly, States and MPOs now must take a performance-based approach to planning and programming, linking investment decisionmaking to the achievement of performance targets. (10)
Along with its emphasis on performance-based planning and programming, MAP-21 emphasizes the nonmetropolitan transportation planning process by requiring States to have a higher level of involvement with nonmetropolitan local officials and providing for the optional creation of RTPOs. The MAP-21 also makes some structural changes to the membership of the MPOs that serve a TMA. Finally, MAP-21 includes voluntary provisions related to scenario planning and developing programmatic mitigation plans. Many of these non-performance management changes codify existing best planning practices.3. Stakeholder EngagementBeginning in 2009, FHWA and FTA initiated a series of peer exchanges, conferences, and workshops to develop a framework for performance-based planning and programming. These sessions explored how States, MPOs, regional planning organizations, and providers of public transportation were implementing performance-based planning and programming, both individually and in concert with their planning partners and stakeholders. During FHWA's and FTA's outreach efforts, the States and MPOs emphasized the need to integrate performance-based planning and programming into the existing, long-standing planning processes, and to avoid creating a separate or distinct process for performance-based planning.
After the passage of MAP-21, FHWA and FTA continued to engage stakeholders to discuss how FHWA and FTA could best implement the various MAP-21 changes to the planning process. This outreach included ongoing workshops on performance-based planning and programming, general and topic-based Webinars, an online dialogue, and participation at stakeholder meetings and conferences. The FHWA and FTA hosted Webinars on the planning provisions of MAP-21, as well as specific topics such as performance-based planning and programming. Participants in the Webinars included States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation.
The FTA also conducted an online dialogue on the topic of TMA MPO structure and the new MAP-21 requirement to include representation by providers of public transportation in that structure. Issues raised in the dialogue included voting representation and determining the process for inclusion of providers of public transportation on MPOs. A transcript from this online dialogue is included with the docket for this NPRM.
A list of the various stakeholder outreach initiatives, including any notes, meeting minutes, or recordings taken during the outreach, and comments received prior to publication, if any, are included in the docket for this NPRM. External stakeholders frequently commented on the need for flexibility and simplicity in implementing MAP-21 requirements given the varying size, capabilities, and operating environments of States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation. Stakeholders also expressed concerns regarding potential difficulties, uncertainties, and risks associated with implementing new provisions such as performance-based planning and programming.III. Major Proposed Revisions to the Planning RuleA. Performance-Based Planning and ProgrammingThe MAP-21 transforms the Federal-aid highway program and the Federal transit program by requiring a transition to a performance-driven, outcome-based program that provides for a greater level of transparency and accountability, improved project decisionmaking, and more efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. (11)
As part of this new performance-based approach, recipients of Federal-aid highway program funds and Federal transit funds would be required to link the investment priorities contained in the STIP and TIP to achieving performance targets. This proposed rule is one of several proposed rules that would establish the basic elements of a performance driven, outcome-based program. This proposed rule isimportant to the FHWA's and FTA's overall implementation of the performance management provisions of MAP-21 because the planning process brings all of the elements together by tying performance to investment decisionmaking.
Several MAP-21 provisions administered by FHWA and FTA focus on the achievement of performance outcomes. In implementing these provisions, FHWA and FTA are undertaking a number of separate but related rulemakings. This NPRM addresses the metropolitan transportation planning and statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning provisions of MAP-21. Additional FHWA and FTA performance-related rules include: Federal-aid Highway Performance Measure Rules [RIN 2125-AF49, 2125-AF53, 2125-AF54], updates to the Highway Safety Improvement Program Regulations [RIN 2125-AF56], Federal-aid Highway Risk-Based Asset Management Plan Rule for the National Highway System (NHS) [RIN 2125-AF57], Transit Asset Management Rule [RIN 2132-AB07], and National and Public Transportation Safety Plans Rule [RIN 2132-AB20]. (12)
A more detailed discussion of these related rulemakings is included in FHWA's first proposed Federal-aid Highway Performance Measure Rule, which is available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/. These performance-related rules for the various FHWA and FTA programs will implement the basic elements of a performance management framework, such as establishment of performance measures and targets and reporting requirements. The planning process brings these elements together—it is where States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation will link decisionmaking and investment priorities to performance targets in key areas. (14)
The FHWA and FTA will establish national performance measures in key areas, including safety, infrastructure condition, congestion, system reliability, emissions, and freight movement. (15)
The performance management framework requires States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation to use these measures to establish targets in these key national performance areas to document expectations for future performance. (16)
The proposed regulatory changes in §§ 450.206 and 450.306 mandate States and MPOs, respectively, to coordinate their targets with each other to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, for transit-related targets, States and MPOs would need to coordinate their targets relating to safety and state of good repair with providers of public transportation to ensure consistency with other performance-based provisions applicable to transit providers, to the maximum extent practicable. This coordination through the planning process should help align MPO and State decisionmaking and advance performance outcomes for the States.
The FTA and FHWA request public comment on the following questions relating to target-setting: What obstacles do States, MPO and transit providers foresee to the coordination among them that is necessary in order to establish targets? What mechanisms currently exist or could be created to facilitate coordination? What role should FHWA and FTA play in assisting States, MPOs and transit providers in complying with these new target-setting requirements? What mechanisms exist or could be created to share data effectively amongst States, MPOs and transit providers? For those States, MPOs and transit providers that already utilize some type of performance management framework, are there best practices that they can share?
Once performance targets are selected, MAP-21 requires that MPOs reflect those targets in their metropolitan transportation plans and encourages States to do the same. Accordingly, this NPRM proposes (17)
that, in their transportation plans, MPOs would need to describe these performance targets, evaluate the condition and performance of the transportation system, and report on progress toward the achievement of their performance targets. (18)
In addition, States should include similar information in their transportation plans. (19)
Importantly, as part of the State and MPO program of projects (the STIPs and TIPs, respectively), the States and MPOs would need to describe, to the maximum extent practicable, the anticipated effect of the investment priorities (or their program of transportation improvement projects) toward achieving the performance targets. (20)
As the long-range plans, STIPs, and TIPs direct investment priorities, it is critical to ensure that performance targets are considered during the development of these documents.
The MAP-21 performance-related provisions also require States, MPOs, and public transportation providers to develop other performance-based plans and processes or impose new requirements on existing performance-based plans and processes. These performance-based plans and processes include the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program performance plan, (21)
the strategic highway safety plan, (22)
the public transportation agency safety plan, (23)
the highway and transit asset management plans, (24)
and, optionally, a State freight plan. (25)
This NPRM proposes in §§ 450.206 and 450.306 that MPOs and States integrate the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets of these other performance plans and processes into their planning process. (26)
This integration would help ensure that key performance elements of these other performance plans are considered as part of the investment decisionmaking process.
The metropolitan planning agreement helps facilitate the working relationship among MPOs, States, and providers of public transportation. In this NPRM, FHWA and FTA propose to amend § 450.314 to require that MPOs include a description in their metropolitan planning agreements that identifies how the parties would cooperatively implement these performance-based planning provisions. The amended metropolitan planning agreements would identify the coordinated processes for the collection of performance data, the selection of performance targets for the metropolitan area, the reporting of metropolitan area targets, and the reporting of actual system performance related to those targets. The agreements would also describe the roles and responsibilitiesfor the collection of data for the NHS. Including this description is critical because of the new requirements for a State asset management plan for the NHS and establishment of performance measures and targets. (27)
The FHWA and FTA seek public comment on how regional planning coordination can be further improved in situations where multiple MPOs serve one or several adjacent urbanized areas. Additionally, FHWA and FTA seek public comment on additional mechanisms that could be created to improve regional coordination in situations where there may be multiple MPOs serving a common urbanized area or adjacent urbanized areas.B. New Emphasis on Nonmetropolitan Transportation PlanningAs indicated by the change in the title to the statutory section, MAP-21 places a new emphasis on the importance of nonmetropolitan transportation planning. The MAP-21 requires the States to work more closely with nonmetropolitan areas. It also gives States the opportunity to designate RTPOs to help address the planning needs of the nonmetropolitan area of the State.
Prior to MAP-21, when developing the long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP, the State was required to consult with nonmetropolitan local officials, which meant that the State would confer with nonmetropolitan local officials and consider their views. (28)
Under MAP-21 and these proposed regulations, States retain decisionmaking authority, but would be required to cooperate with nonmetropolitan local officials, which means that they would be required to work together to achieve a common outcome. (29)
Changing from “consultation” to “cooperation” means States would need to work more closely with nonmetropolitan local officials in the development of the long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP.
To support States' efforts to cooperate with nonmetropolitan areas, MAP-21 provides a more formal framework for States to optionally designate and establish RTPOs. (30)
States have long had the option of establishing regional planning organizations to conduct transportation planning in nonmetropolitan areas, and several States have successfully done so. The MAP-21 codifies this best practice by formally providing for RTPOs. This NPRM proposes in § 450.210 that States may designate and establish RTPOs, and that the duties of the RTPO include the development and maintenance of regional long-range multimodal transportation plans and regional TIPs and fostering the coordination of local planning. These regional plans and programs, along with public involvement, would assist the State in development of the long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP.C. Additions to the Metropolitan Planning ProcessThe MAP-21 made two changes specific to the metropolitan planning process—one change affects the policy board structure of large MPOs, and the second establishes a process for scenario planning. Both of these changes would support the effective implementation of a performance-based planning process.
First, for each MPO serving a TMA, the planning statutes and current planning regulations identify a list of government or agency officials that must be on that policy board, including local elected officials, administrators or operators of major modes of transportation, and appropriate State officials. The MAP-21 specifically identifies in this list (31)
representatives of providers of public transportation. This proposal would add representatives of providers of public transportation to the list of officials in § 450.310. This NPRM proposes that representatives of providers of public transportation would have equal decisionmaking rights and authorities as other officials who are on the policy board of an MPO that serves a TMA. It is up to the MPO, in cooperation with providers of public transportation, to determine how this representation will be structured and established. The MPOs can restructure to meet this requirement without being redesignated by the Governor and local officials.
Including public transportation representation on each MPO serving a TMA supports the new performance requirements for providers of public transportation, including the coordination of MPO targets with providers of public transportation, the coordination of public transportation provider targets with MPOs, and the integration of public transportation performance plans into the metropolitan transportation planning process.
Second, this NPRM proposes in § 450.324 that MPOs may use scenario planning during the development of their metropolitan transportation plans. (32)
Scenario planning is currently used by many MPOs as part of their transportation planning process, and FHWA and FTA consider it a best practice. (33)
Scenario planning is an analytical framework that evaluates the effects of alternative policies, plans and/or programs on the future of a community or region. Scenario planning informs decision makers and the public on the potential implications of various transportation system investments and performance. Scenario planning may consider potential regional investment strategies, distribution of population and employment, land use, future climate scenarios, system performance measures including locally developed measures, and the relationship between investments and local priorities. A defining characteristic of successful scenario planning is that it actively involves the public, the business community, and elected officials on a broad scale, educating them about, and incorporating their values and feedback into future plans.
The FHWA's and FTA's proposal encourages MPOs to use scenario planning during development of the transportation plan. If used, it should include an analysis of how the preferred scenario maintains or improves transportation system condition and performance. Use of scenario planning can improve the effectiveness of a performance management approach because it allows decisionmakers to understand alternative approaches to achieving their performance targets and optimize the use of limited transportation funds.D. Programmatic MitigationIn addition to revising the planning statutes, MAP-21 provides an array of provisions designed to increase innovation and improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in the planning, design, engineering, construction, and financing of transportation projects. These provisions continue efforts to expedite project delivery through bettercoordination between the transportation planning process and the environmental review process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. (34)
The MAP-21 creates a new statutory framework for the optional development of programmatic mitigation plans as part of the planning process for use during the environmental review process. (35)
Use of these plans can expedite project development because the plans provide opportunities for early consideration of environmental resources at a statewide, regional, or corridor level and identify options for mitigating impacts to environmental resources. Prior to the passage of MAP-21, States and MPOs could develop programmatic environmental mitigation plans as part of the statewide metropolitan transportation planning processes. (36)
These new provisions would create a regulatory framework for States' and MPOs' possible development of programmatic environmental plans, including the scope, contents, and process for developing these plans. The proposed new §§ 450.214 and 450.320 would provide guidance on the use of the programmatic mitigation plan during the project development and environmental review process, as described more fully in the section-by-section discussion.IV. Section-by-Section DiscussionThe FHWA and FTA have drafted the section-by-section discussion for the statewide and nonmetropolitan planning sections and the metropolitan planning sections so those sections are self-contained sections. Although this approach may seem repetitive, it will enable stakeholders to review the sections that are relevant to them while minimizing references to other sections.
Sections or paragraphs that would be unchanged under this proposal or where the only changes would be in numbering are not identified in this discussion. In addition, references to the statewide transportation improvement program, metropolitan planning organizations, the Clean Air Act, and others may have been changed to the appropriate acronym. Minor and nonsubstantive changes in capitalizations, changing certain numbers from words to numerals, changes to citation format and order, adding statutory citations to some Clean Air Act references, updates to renumbered cross-references to other sections within part 450, updates to statutory references, and changes from “USDOT” to “DOT” have also been made throughout the proposed regulations without further discussion. In addition, some minor, nonsubstantive grammatical changes were made to provide clarity, including several changes throughout the regulatory text from the passive voice to the active voice without changing the meaning. The docket contains a redline version of the regulatory text showing the differences between the existing regulatory text for 23 CFR part 450 and the proposed regulatory text.Subpart A—Transportation Planning and Programming DefinitionsSection 450.104DefinitionsExisting § 450.104 would be retained, with proposed changes to terms and definitions, as follows.
“Alternatives analysis” would be removed consistent with MAP-21 changes to FTA's Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grant Program (49 U.S.C. 5309), which eliminated the requirement to undertake an alternatives analysis.
“Amendment” would be updated to more accurately reflect the relationship of the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity requirements to the planning process, specifically, to clarify that a conformity determination is not a criterion for determining the need for an amendment in nonattainment and maintenance areas. In addition, the phrase “changing the number of stations in the case of fixed guideway transit projects” would be added to the list of examples of major changes in design concept or design scope.
“Asset management” would be a new definition that would be identical to the definition in MAP-21 Section 1103 (23 U.S.C. 101(a)(2)).
“Committed funds” would be updated to reflect changes to FTA terminology resulting from MAP-21 Section 20008 (49 U.S.C. 5309(h)(7)). Specifically, “Project Grant Agreement” would become “Expedited Grant Agreement.”
“Conformity” would be changed to add “subpart A” after the reference to “40 CFR part 93” to be more specific regarding the citation for the transportation conformity regulations. In addition, “transportation conformity rule” would be changed to “transportation conformity regulations” for clarity. Both of these changes are made throughout the proposed regulatory text where appropriate; please see the redline version of the regulatory text included in the docket for all instances. The phrase “or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area” is added to the end of the second sentence of the definition to conform with the language in section 176(c)(1)(A)(iii) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
“Congestion management process” would be changed to add the phrase “travel demand reduction and” as part of the definition to make it consistent with the long-standing statutory definition in 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3)(A).
“Consideration” would be updated to include the word “consequences” as an item to take into account.
“Designated recipient” would be updated to conform to the statutory definition, now in 49 U.S.C. 5302(4)(B)—“State regional authority” would be changed to “State or regional authority.” Changes resulting from MAP-21 would include: deleting reference to 49 U.S.C. 5306, changing “chief executive officer” to Governor, and replacing “transportation management areas (TMAs) identified under 49 U.S.C. 5303” with “urbanized areas of 200,000 or more in population.” See 49 U.S.C. 5302(4)(A).
“Environmental mitigation activities” would be updated to provide a more readable, streamlined definition for environmental mitigation activities without changing the substance of the definition. The proposed definition would remove reference to “activities” in the list of activities because it is duplicative. It would remove the phrase “compensate for (by replacing or providing substitute resources)” and replace it with “rectify, reduce, or eliminate” because any compensation would typically occur in project development, not in planning. It would remove the phrase “or disruption of elements” of the plan because it is unnecessary. It changes “human and natural environment” to “environmental resources” because it is more specific to state that environmental mitigation would address avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to specific environmental impacts during planning. It also would remove the last two sentences of the definition, which further expound on the definition of human and natural environment, and describe the regional nature of environmental mitigation activities. These sentences were removed because FHWA and FTA did not want States and MPOs to limit mitigation under consideration to only the listed examples as there might be other areas where mitigation could be considered.
“Expedited Grant Agreement (EGA)” would be a new definition added toreflect a new term used in MAP-21. An EGA means a contract that defines the scope, the Federal financial contribution, and other terms and conditions of a Small Starts project, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5309(h)(7).
“Freight shippers” would be revised to broaden the definition to include any entity that routinely transports cargo from one location to another by providers of freight transportation services or by their own operations, involving one or more travel modes. The FHWA and FTA believe the existing definition is too narrow because it is limited to “any business that routinely transports its products from one location to another.” The proposed revised definition for “freight shippers” would be expanded to mean “any entity that routinely transports cargo from one location to another.” The term “entity” would be used in the revised definition to mean any entity that is shipping cargo, and it would replace the term “business,” which was used in the old definition, because it is too limited. The term “products” as used in the existing definition would be changed to “cargo” because “products” is limited to “products” resulting from “business” while “cargo” more widely considers movement of other goods in addition to “products.” “Vehicle fleet” would be changed to “involving one or more travel modes” to reflect the fact that that there may be more than one travel mode involved in shipping freight (e.g., freight movement between trucks and rail at an intermodal facility).
“Highway Safety Improvement Program” (HSIP) would be a new definition. As discussed in the major revisions discussion above, MAP-21's shift to performance-based approach to transportation planning includes several elements. One of those elements is the requirement to integrate the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets from other performance-based plans and processes into the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes. The HSIP would be one of those processes. The new definition would be taken from the proposed 23 CFR 924.3. See the updates to the HSIP regulations [RIN 2125-AF56].
“Illustrative project” would be revised to remove a reference to “(but is not required to)” after the word “may” because it is redundant.
“Local official” would be added as a new definition because of the new emphasis under MAP-21 on nonmetropolitan transportation planning. In particular, MAP-21 requires States to work more closely with nonmetropolitan local officials. A local official would be defined as an elected or appointed official of general-purpose local government with responsibility for transportation.
“Major modes of transportation” is a proposed new definition. The FHWA and FTA propose to add this definition to help clarify the use of the term “major modes of transportation” as it relates to the changes in structure to each MPO that serves a TMA. Although each MPO that serves a TMA will continue to consist of officials, including “officials of public agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation in the metropolitan area,” MAP-21 adds to the end of this phrase “representation by providers of public transportation.” Major modes of transportation would mean those forms of transportation administered, managed, owned, or operated by public agencies or authorities that provide services to the public for the movement of people and goods, or as operated by the private sector on behalf of a public, agency-owned facility.
“Metropolitan Planning Agreement” is a proposed new definition that would mean a written agreement between the MPO, the State(s), and the providers of public transportation serving the metropolitan planning area that describes how they will work cooperatively to meet their mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process, including performance-based planning. Even though Metropolitan Planning Agreements are currently provided for in § 450.314, FHWA and FTA propose this definition because this agreement plays an important role in transitioning to a performance-driven, outcome-based program by helping to identify how MPOs, States, and providers of public transportation would cooperatively implement performance-based planning.
“Non-metropolitan local officials” would be revised to change “non-metropolitan” to “nonmetropolitan.” This change would be made throughout the proposed regulatory text; to see all the instances please refer to the redline in the docket as referenced above.
“Obligated projects” would be updated to clarify that funds may have been obligated in the preceding program year or the current year.
“Performance measures,” “performance metrics,” and “performance targets” would be new definitions added as a result of the new performance-based planning provisions in MAP-21, including sections 1203, 20019, and 20021 (23 U.S.C. 150 and 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 5329). These definitions would refer to the definitions developed for these terms during the rulemakings to implement the referenced MAP-21 provisions. See Federal-aid Highway Performance Measure Rules [RIN 2125-AF49, 2125-AF53, 2125-AF54], Transit Asset Management Rule [RIN 2132-AB07], and National and Public Transportation Safety Plans Rule [RIN 2132-AB20].
“Project construction grant agreement” would be deleted because MAP-21 renamed it “Expedited Grant Agreement” (which is included as a new definition), in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5309(h)(7).
“Provider of freight transportation services” would be modified so that “goods” is changed to “cargo” to be consistent with the definition of “freight shippers.”
“Public transportation agency safety plan” is a proposed new definition and would mean a comprehensive plan established by a State or recipient of funds under Title 49, chapter 53. This definition reflects MAP-21's new requirement that the statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning process integrate the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets from other performance-based plans. The public transportation agency safety plan would be one of those plans.
“Public transportation operator” would be modified to provide clarification. The phrase “public entity” in the existing definition would be changed to “public entity or government-approved authority.” This would reflect that the public transportation operator may be: (1) A public entity, or (2) a governmental-approved authority that is not a public entity. Also, the definition is modified so that the list of entities that are not considered to be “public transportation operators” would be expanded to include a conveyance that provides “sightseeing” or “certain types of shuttle service.”
“Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO)” would be a new definition resulting from MAP-21's emphasis on nonmetropolitan transportation planning and the creation of a new optional statutory framework for these organizations. The definition would be taken directly from 23 U.S.C. 135(m)(1) and (2) and would mean a policy board of nonmetropolitan local officials or their designees created to carry out the regional transportation planning process.
“Regionally significant project” would be modified by removing the word “significant” from the last sentence of the definition. This change would eliminate an unintended redundancy in the existing regulation,as all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel are regionally significant projects. The proposed change would not change the meaning of the term “Regionally significant project.”
“Scenario planning” would be a new definition added to reflect MAP-21's codification of an existing best practice in the metropolitan transportation planning process. Scenario planning would mean a planning process that evaluates the effects of alternative policies, plans and/or programs on the future of a community or region. The MPOs may use scenario planning as they develop the transportation plan. The FHWA and FTA have based this definition on language in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4)(A)-(C).
“Strategic Highway Safety Plan” would be retained and updated, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148, as amended by MAP-21. In addition to minor administrative changes, FHWA and FTA propose to change “plan” to “comprehensive multidisciplinary plan, based on safety data.”
“Transit Asset Management Plan” and “Transit Asset Management System” would be proposed new definitions, added as a result of the new performance-based planning provisions in MAP-21, to integrate performance elements of other plans (including the new transit asset management plan) into the transportation planning process. These definitions would refer to the definitions developed for these terms during the rulemaking to implement the new MAP-21 transit asset management provisions (49 U.S.C. 5326). See Transit Asset Management Rule [RIN 2132-AB07].
“Transportation Contol Measure” would be changed to add the phrase “including a substitute or additional TCM that is incorporated into the applicable SIP through the process established in CAA section 176(c)(8)” as part of the definition. This change is being proposed for better consistency with the 2005 amendments to section 176 of the Clean Air Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), enacted in section 6011(d) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
“Visualization techniques” would be changed to add language to clarify the types of methods that can be used (“GIS or web-based surveys, inventories”) as well as the types of facilities and resources that may be included (“identifying features such as roadway rights of way, transit, intermodal, and non-motorized transportation facilities, historic and cultural resources, natural resources, and environmentally sensitive areas”). This list is illustrative of the types of items that can be included and is not an exclusive list.Subpart B—Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning and ProgrammingThe title of Subpart B would be changed from “Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming” to “Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning” to reflect statutory changes. The addition of “Nonmetropolitan” to the title epitomizes MAP-21's new emphasis on the importance of nonmetropolitan transportation planning.Section 450.200PurposeThe statement of purpose in § 450.200 would be revised to make two changes to reflect the MAP-21 shift to a performance-based approach to statewide transportation planning. The two changes include adding reference to the new 23 U.S.C. 150 (the new Federal-aid highway program provision requiring the Secretary to establish performance measures and standards) and adding “performance-based” before the reference to the multimodal transportation planning process.Section 450.202ApplicabilityExisting § 450.202 would be modified to add RTPOs as one of the entities responsible for satisfying the statewide transportation planning provisions. One of MAP-21's major changes is the codification of a framework States may use to establish and designate RTPOs.Section 450.206Scope of the Statewide Transportation and Nonmetropolitan Planning ProcessSection 450.206 describes the scope of the statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning process. The FHWA and FTA propose to revise this section to incorporate MAP-21's critical changes to the planning process requiring States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation to link investment priorities (the transportation improvement program of projects) to achieving performance targets that will be established to reflect performance measures in key areas. Several key elements of a performance management approach would be included in the proposed revisions to this regulation (see paragraph (c)): establishment of performance targets, coordination of performance targets, integration of elements of other performance-based plans, and consideration in the development of investment priorities. One other significant change is the inclusion of the word “nonmetropolitan” in the proposed heading reflecting the increased emphasis on nonmetropolitan transportation planning. Th