[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20536]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 19, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
[FHWA/FTA Docket No. 94-19]

 

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

AGENCIES: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On April 28, 1994, the FHWA and the FTA Administrators jointly 
issued guidance to their respective regional administrators on the 
implementation of the Federal certification of the metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPO) (transportation management area (TMA)) 
planning process. This guidance outlines the principles and interim 
procedures that will be utilized in implementing the certification 
process required under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act (ISTEA) and as further articulated in the US DOT regulations.
    This notice also announces the schedule of FY 1994 reviews as known 
at this time. As indicated in the attached certification guidance, the 
FHWA and FTA are planning approximately twenty reviews for FY 1994, 
approximately half of which will be pilots for the purpose of testing 
and refining the review process. Interested parties are invited to 
submit comments on the individual planning processes to be reviewed.

DATES: Comments on metropolitan planning processes under review must be 
received within thirty (30) days of the scheduled review in order to be 
considered during the certification review process. Where reviews have 
already been held by the publication of this notice, individuals 
interested in commenting on them should immediately contact Sheldon 
Edner (see following paragraph for phone number and address and further 
instructions below). Where dates are to be announced, a supplemental 
notice announcing these dates will be issued when the specific dates 
are confirmed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FHWA: Mr. Sheldon Edner, Planning 
Operations Branch (HEP-21), (202) 366-4066 (metropolitan planning) or 
Mr. Reid Alsop, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-31), (202) 366-
1371. For the FTA: Mr. Paul Verchinski, Resource Management Division 
(TGM-21), (202) 366-6385 or Mr. Scott Biehl, FTA Office of the Chief 
Counsel (TCC-40), (202) 366-4063. Both agencies are located at 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours for FHWA are 
from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., and for the FTA are from 8:30 a.m. 
to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections 1024, 1025, and 3012 of the ISTEA, 
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1955, 1962, and 2098, amended title 
23, U.S.C., and the Federal Transit Act by revising sections 134 and 
135 of title 23 and section 8 of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. 
app. 1607) which require a continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated 
transportation planning process in metropolitan areas and States. The 
FHWA and the FTA revised their previous metropolitan planning 
regulations to implement these changes and published the final 
regulations on October 28, 1993 (58 FR 58040).
    As part of an ongoing commitment to public involvement in the 
planning process, the FHWA and FTA are soliciting comments on this 
guidance. As the agencies conduct certification reviews in FY 1994 we 
will be looking at possible modifications based both on the experience 
of having conducted the reviews and on the comments received on the 
guidance and during the reviews. Specifically, the FHWA and FTA are 
interested in comments regarding the process of review, appropriate 
sources of information to be considered during the review, and the role 
of key government officials and the public in providing input to the 
review.

General

Additional Public Involvement in Certification Process

    The FHWA and FTA are soliciting public comment on the planning 
processes of the FY 1994 certification review sites identified below. 
The agencies are particularly interested in input regarding the 
strengths and weaknesses of the planning process in light of the 
requirements identified in 23 CFR 450 Subpart C. Additionally, the 
views of local officials and the public are welcomed regarding the use 
of the planning process in transportation investment decisions.

Schedule of FY 1994 Certification Reviews

    The following schedule is subject to revision. Changes will be 
announced in the Federal Register. Parties interested in providing 
comments on the metropolitan transportation planning processes in the 
identified areas should submit them directly to the Docket 94-19 
identified above, clearly identifying the metropolitan area that the 
comments address. Except where the certification review was completed 
prior to this Federal Register Notice, comments on metropolitan 
planning processes under review must be received within 30 days of the 
scheduled review in order to be considered during the certification 
review process. Where the review was completed prior to publication of 
this notice, interested parties wishing to make comments on a 
particular certification, must contact Sheldon Edner within two weeks 
of the date of this notice to assure that their comments will be 
considered. Where dates for a planned certification review have not 
been established, please contact Sheldon Edner for the dates.
    The site visits are intended to provide an opportunity for the FHWA 
and FTA review team to solicit information from the MPO, State DOT and 
transit agency regarding the implementation of the planning process. In 
addition, the team will be experimenting with alternative mechanisms 
for soliciting public and local official input. The relevant MPO is 
being asked to provide public notice, through its regular public notice 
processes, of the review and the opportunity to provide public input to 
the review team. Public officials should contact the MPO to identify 
processes set up to solicit local government input.
    The results of the certification reviews will be made public 
through the regular MPO public information process at a time to be set 
by the MPO policy board. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Region               Pilot reviews            Second review    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/2\..................  Albany, NY: August 9-    Both reviews in this  
                          12, 1994..               region will be pilot 
                         Worcester, MA: August 2-  reviews because of   
                          3, 1994.                 the geographic       
                                                   difference in FTA and
                                                   FHWA regions.        
3......................  Richmond, VA: September  Allentown, PA: Dates  
                          12-15, 1994.             TBA but probably the 
                                                   week of September 22-
                                                   23, 1994.            
4......................  Nashville, TN: July 11-  All reviews in this   
                          13, 1994..               region will be pilots
                         Louisville, KY:           because of the       
                          September 6-8, 1994..    diversity of MPOs and
                         Orlando, FL: August 22-   the large number of  
                          24, 1994.                TMAs in the region.  
5......................  Indianapolis, IN:        None selected at this 
                          August 29- September     time.                
                          2, 1994.                                      
6......................  Albuquerque, NM: August  San Antonio, TX:      
                          10-12, 1994.             August 29-30, 1994.  
7......................  Omaha, NE: July 18-20,   Wichita, KS: TBA.     
                          1994.                                         
8......................  Provo, UT: August 9-12,  Denver, CO: TBA.      
                          1994.                                         
9......................  San Diego, CA: August 1- Santa Barbara, CA:    
                          4, 1994.                 September 13-15,     
                                                   1994.                
10.....................  Spokane, WA: July 25-    Portland, OR: TBA.    
                          27, 1994.                                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Text of Certification Transmittal Memorandum and Guidance
    The text of the transmittal memorandum and guidance follow.

ACTION: Federal Certification of the MPO (TMA) Planning Process
To: FTA Regional Administrators; FHWA Regional Administrators
From: Federal Transit Administrator; Federal Highway Administrator

    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
(ISTEA) has significantly enhanced the stewardship role of the FTA and 
FHWA in the implementation of the changes it mandates in the 
transportation planning process. Inherent within the approval of 
Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP), planning 
findings, conformity determinations and certification of the 
transportation planning process in Transportation Management Areas 
(TMA) is the fundamental leadership responsibility of FTA and FHWA in 
ensuring that the transportation planning process addresses the policy 
goals of the ISTEA. This memorandum articulates our general agency 
expectations with regard to this planning stewardship and the specific 
function that certification plays within this broader framework. While 
certification of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) TMA 
planning processes falls within the purview of the metropolitan 
planning regulations, the basic principles apply to both the statewide 
and metropolitan planning requirements.
    We view certification of the planning process within TMAs as one of 
a number of the critical mechanisms for ensuring the satisfactory 
implementation of the planning requirements identified in 23 U.S.C. l34 
and 49 U.S.C. 1602. It is perhaps most critical in the sense that it 
will be a very visible action and formal indication that we have 
exercised our legal responsibility in meeting this stewardship 
function. However, the individual planning findings, necessary 
conformity determinations and STIP approvals provide critical input to 
this triennial action. We expect our regions to establish procedures 
for implementing this joint responsibility. While the substance of 
these decisions must remain consistent across regions, the variation in 
workload posed by the distribution of TMAs will dictate procedural 
accommodations by region.
    The attached statement of principles and guidance provides a 
framework for addressing the implementation of the certification 
requirement. We expect the responsibility for issuing certification 
determinations to rest jointly with our field offices, working in 
partnership with Headquarters. The effective implementation of the 
certification process will require a significant allocation of 
resources which you should address in the development of regional 
staffing and travel budgets.
    Especially in this initial effort and in recognition of the phase-
in provisions of the metropolitan planning regulations (Section 
45.336), we expect the emphasis to rest on ensuring a good faith effort 
to implement plan updates and the priorities indicated in the 
attachment. We also expect that the message conveyed to MPOs, state 
DOTs and transit operators collectively will be that they are mutually 
responsible for the continuing enhancement and improvement of the 
planning process to meet the objectives of the ISTEA planning 
requirements.
    We expect the primary responsibility for implementing our 
stewardship role to rest with FTA and FHWA field staff. However, this 
is manifested not only in the certification process, but also in STIP 
approvals, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and STIP planning 
findings, conformity findings, and unified planning work program 
approvals. In recognition of our national stewardship role and mandate 
from the ISTEA, we plan to conduct Enhanced Planning Reviews (EPR) in 
selected metropolitan areas which will be integrated with the 
certification processes for the respective metropolitan areas. These 
EPRs will be done at the request of states, MPOs, transit operators or 
FTA/FHWA field or Headquarters offices to pursue more complex planning 
process questions and to assist MPOs in improving their procedures. As 
a supplement to these EPRs, we plan to develop and implement an overall 
assessment of the planning process and its implementation under the 
ISTEA requirements over the next three fiscal years. The results of the 
planning reviews will provide input to this analysis. The challenge and 
the expectations are such that we believe that a very visible and 
substantial assessment is necessary to demonstrate our joint commitment 
and success in providing the leadership expected of both agencies. You 
will be hearing more about this initiative as it is developed.
    We will be discussing the attached certification procedures and 
guidance with your offices at opportunities over the next several 
weeks. In conjunction with FHWA's Advance Planning Seminar which is 
scheduled for the week of April 10, we expect to have FHWA and FTA 
field staff participating in this seminar assist us in refining the 
attached certification procedures and guidance. Additionally, we will 
meet with field staff during May to discuss the certification process 
in more detail after additional guidance has been developed. As 
indicated in the attached paper, once this meeting has been held and 
the guidance refined, Headquarters staff will participate with field 
staff in conducting a pilot certification review in each region. 
Certification reviews should not be initiated by field staff pending 
the issuance of the additional guidance and/or completion of the pilot 
certification reviews. If you have questions on certification, please 
contact Deborah Burns, Office of Planning, TGM-21, at (202) 366-1637 or 
Sheldon Edner, Office of Environment and Planning, HEP-21, at (202) 
366-4066.
Gordon J. Linton,
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
Rodney E. Slater,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

Guidance Certification of the Metropolitan Planning Process in TMAs

Principles/Process

     Must be a joint action by FHWA and FTA.
     Must be based on a serious examination of the planning 
process that documents the adequacy of the planning process. However, 
the workload involved in reviewing the planning process for 
approximately 135 MPOs once every 3 years combined with other oversight 
and administrative responsibilities demands a process that utilizes and 
builds on the other oversight functions including TIP findings, Unified 
Planning Work Program approvals and conformity findings.
     The certification process must recognize the differences 
among areas and not expect each area to respond to the requirements to 
some predefined minimum level/standard. The goal should be to encourage 
an improved planning process in each area rather than a process that 
only minimally meets the requirements.
     Process must recognize that certification is likely to 
involve negotiated improvements and schedules rather than pass or fail 
ratings. In this vein, the ISTEA sanction provisions are viewed as a 
``last resort'' action to be used in situations where the parties 
involved are unresponsive to needed corrections or there are very 
serious inadequacies in the planning process. In almost all cases, it 
is likely that the ``planning finding'' process discussed below would 
probably have identified deficiencies and may have already affected the 
advancement of projects.
     While certification is the formal mechanism provided by 
ISTEA for determining the adequacy of the planning process in TMAs, a 
``once-every-three-years-look'' at the planning process is not 
sufficient to ensure that the planning process, its products, and our 
actions related to the planning process meet the requirements. 
Fortunately, the regulations provide additional mechanisms for assuring 
the adequacy of the planning process, i.e., the planning finding that 
must be made on each TIP/TIP amendment in all metropolitan planning 
areas prior to its inclusion in an approved STIP, the air quality 
conformity determination process in nonattainment and maintenance 
areas, and the review and approval of the planning work programs for 
all metropolitan areas.
    The planning finding provides a mechanism for identifying problems 
and requiring immediate corrective action without going through the 
more formal certification process. In addition, the planning finding 
process can provide an early warning mechanism for initiating a 
certification review prior to end of the normal 3 year certification 
period as well as in highlighting parts of the planning process that 
need to be examined in more depth as part of regularly scheduled 
certification reviews (and conversely identifying those parts that are 
clearly meeting the regulatory requirements and therefore require less 
review in the certification process). Although pre-ISTEA planning 
findings may have relied primarily on the State and MPO self-
certification statements, this is not expected to be the case under the 
regulations. It is expected that FHWA/FTA as part of the planning 
findings process will review the adequacy of public involvement, 
financial constraint, relationship of projects in TIP to the 
transportation plan, and satisfaction of the provisions relating to the 
restriction on SOV projects in TMAs that are nonattainment for carbon 
monoxide and/or ozone.
    The conformity regulations require consultation with a number of 
agencies (including FHWA and FTA) on key elements of the metropolitan 
planning process, including models to be used, proposed plans and TIPs, 
research and data collection related to the transportation planning 
process. The concerns that may be raised through this consultation 
process will provide another mechanism for identifying potential 
shortcomings in the planning process. Additionally, as part of the 
conformity determination in nonattainment areas requiring TCMs, FHWA 
and FTA must specifically consider comments concerning the financial 
feasibility of the plan and TIP made through the conformity 
consultation process and the metropolitan planning public involvement 
process.
    Where review of the work programs indicates that essential 
activities for complying with the regulations are not being adequately 
undertaken and/or the proposed schedules for completing the activities 
do not satisfy regulatory requirements, the need for revisions to the 
work program can be addressed. Where there is not a positive response, 
FHWA and FTA can pursue this through action on the UPWP or a 
certification review could be initiated without waiting the normal 
three years.
     It is expected that FHWA and FTA field staff will involve 
themselves in the planning process on at least a selective basis, e.g., 
participation in key MPO meetings, monitoring TIP revisions, etc. This 
can be a valuable mechanism for not only surfacing potential problems 
and deficiencies in the planning process, and in initiating corrective 
action but also providing contact with local officials. This is an 
enhancement of the traditional planning oversight role of FHWA and FTA 
field offices.
     Enhanced planning reviews (EPRs) similar to the ones that 
FHWA and FTA have been doing in areas over a million can provide 
valuable input to the certification reviews and other oversight 
functions. For example, where FHWA and FTA identify an apparent 
shortcoming in the technical process, a comprehensive review of this 
portion of the process could be undertaken with Transportation Systems 
Center (TSC) staff. They could also be used to do ``peer'' type reviews 
on a selected or request basis. In what ever form, these EPRs will 
require substantial additional resources.
     Reviews conducted under the FHWA Office of Program Review 
annual review program may also augment the certification reviews and 
other oversight functions. For example, last year implementation of the 
flexibility provisions and administration of joint FHWA/FTA projects 
was the subject of one of the reviews.
     Individual certification reviews should be tailored to 
reflect the information available from other oversight activities. 
While this may not be a significant factor for the certifications 
performed in the remainder of FY-94, this will become a significant 
factor as other oversight functions reflect the regulatory 
requirements. This means that while all aspects of the process will be 
addressed in the certification findings a significant amount of the 
information needed to make a decision on certification will be obtained 
from other oversight activities and day-to-day involvement in the 
planning process. It is expected that the certification process will 
include a discussion of the findings with the MPO policy body.
    Certification reviews in the balance of 1994 (at least) will need 
to be done with the recognition that MPOs, States, and transit 
operators will have had little time to address new regulatory 
requirements and even less time to consider any nonregulatory guidance 
that may be issued to supplement the regulations. These reviews need to 
focus on how well they have addressed the interim guidance and what 
they are doing to begin to address the additional requirements in the 
final regulations.
     Guidance for DOT staff conducting certifications will have 
to be developed. This may include manuals, certification forms, 
checklists, etc.
     FHWA and FTA field staff will be the primary staff 
involved in certifying MPOs. An assessment will have to be made on 
training that may be necessary to equip DOT staff to perform 
certification reviews. One potential mechanism in lieu of any formal 
training is for Headquarters to lead the initial certification review 
in each Region.
    As part of the process, the areas identified below represent focal 
points in the first round of certification reviews. They have been the 
subject of keen interest by several key constituencies, represent 
priority issues to FHWA and FTA and have been the subject of numerous 
questions by MPOs, States, and transit agencies. These areas should be 
addressed in a general way, reflecting the phase-in of the planning 
requirements.
    Fifteen Factors--The planning regulations (58 FR 58040) require 
that the 15 factors be explicitly considered and analyzed as 
appropriate.
    Public Involvement--The metropolitan transportation planning 
process should include provisions that encourage and ensure early and 
continuing involvement of citizens, affected public agencies, 
representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers 
of transportation, and other interested parties in the development of 
plans and TIPs, and in all other stages of the planning process.
    Major Transportation Investments--Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations (MPO) and their planning partners must undertake detailed 
and participatory corridor and subarea studies of any major corridor 
investments contained in a regional plan. These studies will include 
detailed analysis of the forecasted effectiveness of alternative 
investments and strategies in terms of a broad array of criteria.
    Congestion Management System--In TMAs, the planning process must 
include the development of a Congestion Management System (CMS) that 
provides for effective management of new and existing transportation 
facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational 
management strategies. In TMAs that are nonattainment for carbon 
monoxide and/or ozone, Federal funds are not to be programmed for 
highway projects that increase Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) carrying 
capacity unless such projects result from a CMS, meaning, in essence, 
that Transportation Demand Management (TDM), transit, operating 
strategies, and other actions must be looked at as alternatives to new 
highway construction. Even if such strategies cannot completely satisfy 
the need for additional capacity, they must be implemented in 
conjunction with the SOV capacity enhancements.
    The planning process and Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 
conformity--In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the MPO must have 
an adequate process to ensure conformity of plans and programs with 
State or Federal implementation plans, in accordance with procedures 
contained in the rules resulting from the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990.
    Financially constrained plans and TIPS--The regulations require 
that MPOs have in place a process that produces current metropolitan 
plans and TIPs that are financially feasible. Plans must demonstrate 
the consistency of proposals with known and reasonably expected sources 
of revenue for transportation uses. The TIP must be financially 
constrained and include a plan that demonstrates how it can be 
implemented without detriment to operation and maintenance of the 
existing transportation system, and only projects for which funds can 
reasonably be expected to be available may be programmed. The 
metropolitan TIP is incorporated into the financially constrained State 
TIP which is jointly approved by FHWA and FTA. In nonattainment and 
maintenance areas, funds for projects in the first two years of a TIP 
must be available or committed.

Schedule of Activities

By April 1, 1994
     Develop and issue draft guidance for field.
     Schedule meeting on certification with field staff and 
schedule pilot reviews in each Region.
By July 31, 1994
     Complete one pilot review per region, evaluate results, 
and make any necessary modifications to guidance.
By September 30, 1994
     Each region should complete at least one additional 
certification review.
     Evaluate results and regional/State workload. If necessary 
modify approach and consider options for handling workload. (There is 
significant disparity in the certification workload by Region as well 
as individual States.)

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48; 3012 Pub. L. 102-240, 
Sections 1024, 1025; 105 Stat. 1914, 1955, 1962, and 2098.

    Issued on: August 16, 1994
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administration.
 Gordon J. Linton,
Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-20536 Filed 08-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P