[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33922-33958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13021]



[[Page 33921]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Highway Administration



Federal Transit Administration



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



23 CFR Parts 450 and 1410

49 CFR Parts 613 and 621



Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation 
Planning; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 33922]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 450 and 1410

Federal Transit Administration

23 CFR Part 1410

49 CFR Parts 613 and 621

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-5933]
FHWA RIN 2125-AE62; FTA RIN 2132-AA66


Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation 
Planning

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA and the FTA are jointly issuing this document which 
proposes revisions to the regulations governing the development of 
transportation plans and programs for urbanized (metropolitan) areas 
and statewide transportation plans and programs. These revisions are a 
product of statutory changes made by the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century (TEA-21) enacted on June 9, 1998, and generally would 
revise existing regulatory language to make it consistent with current 
statutory requirements. In addition, the proposed regulatory language 
addresses the implementation of Presidential Executive Order 12898 
regarding Environmental Justice. These changes are being proposed in 
concert with revisions to regulations regarding environmental impact 
and related procedures which are published separately in today's 
Federal Register. The two rules are linked in terms of their working 
relationship and the FHWA and the FTA are soliciting comments on each 
rule individually, as well as their intended functional and operational 
interrelationships.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 2000. For 
dates of public information meetings see ``Supplementary Information.''

ADDRESSES: All signed, written comments must refer to the docket number 
appearing at the top of this document and must be submitted to the 
Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments received will be available for 
examination at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring 
notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, 
stamped envelope or postcard. For addresses of public information 
meetings see ``Supplementary Information.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the FHWA: Mr. Sheldon M. Edner, 
Metropolitan Planning and Policies Team (HEPM), (202) 366-4066 
(metropolitan planning), Mr. Dee Spann, Statewide Planning Team (HEPS), 
(202) 366-4086 (statewide planning), or Mr. Reid Alsop, Office of the 
Chief Counsel (HCC-31), (202) 366-1371. For the FTA: Mr. Charles 
Goodman, Metropolitan Planning Division (TPL-12) (metropolitan 
planning), (202) 366-1944, Mr. Paul Verchinski, Statewide Planning 
Division (TPL-11)(statewide planning), (202) 366-6385, or Mr. Scott 
Biehl, Office of the Chief Counsel (TCC-30), (202) 366-0952. Both 
agencies are located at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Office hours for the FHWA are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., and 
for the FTA are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT 
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): 
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each 
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and 
help.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a 
computer, modem and suitable communications software from the 
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at 
(202)512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal 
Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government 
Printing Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Public Information Meetings

    We will hold a series of seven public briefings within the comment 
period for the NPRM. The purpose of these briefings is to explain the 
content of the NPRM and encourage public input to the final rulemaking. 
The meetings will address this NPRM, the companion NPRM on the 
environmental (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)) 
process, and the NPRM on Intelligent Transportation Systems 
Architecture consistency. The meetings will be scheduled from 
approximately 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the locations listed below. Further 
information and any changes in addresses, dates and other logistical 
information will be made available after the publication of this NPRM 
through the FHWA and the FTA websites, and through other public 
announcement avenues and the newsletters and websites of major 
stakeholder groups. Individuals wishing information, but without access 
to these sources, may contact the individuals listed in the above 
caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The structure of the meetings will emphasize brief presentations by 
the DOT staff regarding the content of the NPRM. A period for 
clarifying questions will be provided. Under current statutory and 
regulatory provisions, the DOT staff will not be permitted to engage in 
a substantive dialog regarding what the content of the NPRMs and the 
final regulations should be. Attendees wishing to express ideas and 
thoughts regarding the final content of the rules should direct those 
comments to the docket. Briefing sites will include: Boston, MA, 
Auditorium, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, 
June 9, 2000; Atlanta, GA, Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree 
Street, June 20, 2000; Washington, D.C., Marriott Metro Center, 775 
12th Street, NW, June 23, 2000; Chicago, IL, Holiday Inn Mart Plaza, 
350 North Orleans Street, June 27, 2000; Denver, CO, Marriott City 
Center, 1701 California Street, June 30 , 2000; Dallas, TX, Hyatt 
Regency Hotel Dallas, 300 Reunion Boulevard, July 11, 2000; and, San 
Francisco, CA, Radisson Miyako, 1625 Post Street, July 19, 2000.
    As part of the outreach process planned for these proposed rules, 
the FHWA/FTA will be conducting a national teleconference on June 15, 
2000 from 1-4 p.m. eastern time, through the auspices of the Center for 
Transportation and the Environment at North Carolina State University. 
The teleconference will be accessible through numerous downlink 
locations nationwide and further information can be obtained from Ms. 
Katie McDermott at [email protected]. The purpose of the 
teleconference is to describe the proposed new statewide and 
metropolitan planning, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA), Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, implementation, and 
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) rules.
    An overview of each of the three notices of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRMs) will be presented and the audience (remote and local) will have 
opportunities to ask questions and seek clarification of FHWA/FTA 
proposals. By sponsoring this teleconference it is hoped that interest 
in the NPRMs is

[[Page 33923]]

generated, that stakeholders will be well informed about FHWA/FTA 
proposals, and that interested parties will participate in the 
rulemaking process by submitting written suggestions, comments and 
concerns to the docket.

Background

    Sections 1203, 1204, and 1308 of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178, 
112 Stat. 107, amended 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, which require a 
continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated transportation planning 
process in metropolitan areas and States. Similar changes were made by 
sections 3004, 3005, and 3006 of the TEA-21 to 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306 
which address the metropolitan planning process in the context of the 
FTA's responsibilities. We are proposing revisions to our current 
metropolitan and statewide planning regulations and are inviting 
comments on the proposed revisions.

General Information Concerning Development of Regulation

Approach to Structure of Proposed Regulation

    Revisions to the current regulation at 23 CFR part 450 are being 
proposed to reflect the impacts of the TEA-21. We have adopted an 
approach to the proposed revisions that will rely heavily on guidance 
and good practice. The proposed regulatory language attempts to respond 
to legislative mandates and changes with minimal amplification where 
feasible. In some cases, other factors, e.g., court cases, presidential 
directives, etc., have provided a stimulus for change and 
amplification. In these instances, the agencies have tried to keep 
regulatory language to a minimum except where clarification would 
assist appropriate agencies and groups in complying.
    In a separate document in today's Federal Register, we propose to 
remove 23 CFR part 771 and add parts 1420 and 1430 in its stead. This 
regulation implements the FTA and the FHWA processes for complying with 
the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for 
implementing the NEPA, Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852. Jointly 
administered by the FTA and the FHWA, part 771 was last revised in 
1987. The passage of the TEA-21 and its predecessor, the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Public Law 102-
240, 105 Stat. 1914, have contributed legislative impetus to a 
revision. To facilitate compliance with section 1308 of the TEA-21 
dealing with major investment studies and section 1309 addressing 
environmental streamlining and twelve years of court rulings and 
experience, we propose to revise the regulations regarding 
environmental impact and related procedures in conjunction with those 
for metropolitan and statewide transportation planning. In general, the 
intent is to more effectively link the two regulations to facilitate 
integration of decisions, reduce paperwork and analytical activity 
where feasible, and to refine procedures and processes to achieve 
greater efficiency of decision making. In addition, we believe that an 
integrated approach to planning and project development (NEPA process 
plus additional project level actions needed to prepare for project 
implementation) will contribute to more effective and environmentally 
sound decisions regarding investment choices and trade-offs.
    In preparing this proposed rule, we have attempted to maintain or 
reduce the level of data collection and analyses that is currently 
required. We solicit comment on the extent to which this strategy has 
been achieved. Comments suggesting that the strategy has not been 
successful should identify specific requirements and/or provisions that 
increase burdens and provide specific reasons for this increase. The 
degree or extent of the increase should be identified also. Suggestions 
to lessen burdens are welcome.
    In the proposed rule, we revised the section headings to utilize 
more commonplace language and for clarity. The substance of the 
sections is modified in some cases as described below. The organization 
of each section and overall flow of organization remains predominantly 
unchanged, except as indicated in the section-by-section discussion.
    In addition, we are proposing a new numbering scheme. Current part 
450 would be redesignated as part 1410.

Input to Development of Proposed Regulation

    As noted above, the TEA-21 was signed into law on June 9, 1998. 
Subsequently, the DOT initiated a series of national meetings to 
solicit input regarding possible approaches to implementing the new 
legislation. The results of the principal public sessions in this 
outreach effort are summarized in ``Listening to America: TEA-21 
Outreach Summary, 1998.'' This document was published by the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. It is currently 
available online through the following website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/listamer.htm. Additionally, on February 10, 1999, we issued a 
discussion paper (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit 
Administration, TEA-21 Planning and Environmental Provisions: Options 
for Discussion) to further solicit public comments regarding previously 
provided suggestions. This discussion paper was designed to reflect 
comments from stakeholder groups and encourage all interested parties 
to provide additional detailed comments on approaches to implementing 
the statutory provisions for the planning and environmental sections of 
the law. The Options Paper is available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tea21imp.htm.

Overall Strategy for Regulatory Development

    Our strategy for regulatory development has three principal 
elements: (1) Outreach and listening to stakeholders, (2) developing 
improvements that will allow the FHWA, the FTA, the States and 
metropolitan areas to demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving 
congressional objectives, and (3) looking internally, with our Federal 
partner agencies, at how we collectively can improve coordination and 
performance.
    As indicated above, the FHWA and the FTA, in concert with the 
Office of the Secretary and other modal administrations within the DOT, 
developed and implemented an extensive public outreach process on all 
elements of the TEA-21. The process began shortly after the legislation 
was enacted on June 9, 1998, and various types of outreach activities 
have been underway since that time. The initial six-month 
departmentwide outreach process included twelve regional forums and 
over 50 focus groups and workshops (63 FR 40330, July 28, 1998). The 
DOT heard from over 3,000 people, including members of Congress, 
Governors and Mayors, other elected officials, transportation 
practitioners at all levels, community activists and environmentalists, 
freight shippers and suppliers, and other interested individuals. The 
input received was valuable and has helped us shape our implementation 
strategy, guidance and regulations. Those comments will be placed in 
this docket as informational background.
    With respect to the planning and environmental provisions of the 
TEA-21, we learned a great deal through the twelve regional forums and 
focus group sessions and subsequently implemented a second, more 
focused phase of outreach which included issuing an Options Paper for 
discussion on the Planning and Environmental Streamlining Provisions of 
the TEA-21. The contents of the Options Paper

[[Page 33924]]

reflected input received up to that time and built upon the existing 
statewide and metropolitan planning regulations and our implementing 
regulation for the NEPA. We released the Options Paper on February 10, 
1999, and received comments through April 30, 1999.
    More than 150 different sets of comments were received from State 
Departments of Transportation (State DOTs), Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations (MPOs), counties, regional planning commissions, other 
Federal agencies, transit agencies, bicycle advocacy groups, 
engineering organizations, consultants, historical commissions, 
environmental groups, and customers--the American public. These 
comments were all reviewed and taken into consideration in the 
development of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Another element of outreach included meetings between the FHWA and 
the FTA and key stakeholder groups, other Federal agencies, and the 
regional and field staff within the FHWA and the FTA. These sessions 
also helped guide us in developing this notice of proposed rulemaking. 
Comments on this NPRM are welcomed and will be taken into account prior 
to the issuance of a final regulation on statewide and metropolitan 
planning under the TEA-21.
    The Options Paper comments are contained in the docket and are 
summarized below. This general summary is structured around the issues 
as presented in the Options Paper and seeks to provide an overall 
perspective on the range of opinions submitted to the FHWA and the FTA. 
Details on specific comments and input can be obtained by reviewing the 
materials in the docket.
    These proposed rules were developed by an interagency task force of 
planners and environmental specialists of the FHWA and the FTA, with 
input from other DOT modal agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), other Federal agencies and the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. DOT. The task force reviewed all input received from the outreach 
process and through other sources which communicate regularly with the 
DOT. In addition, comments were solicited from the field staff of the 
FHWA and the FTA.

Summary of Comments Received on Options Paper

    The following discussion summarizes the comments received on the 
Options Paper and the response we are generally taking in structuring 
this proposed rule. This summary focuses only on the comments directly 
related to planning. The comments regarding environmental provisions, 
generally, are treated in the preamble to the proposed revision to 23 
CFR 771. Cross-cutting issues as discussed in the Options Paper appear 
in both preambles, as appropriate. Since many commenters included both 
planning and environmental topics in their correspondence, an exact 
count of planning versus environment issues in the 150 comments 
received is not easy or useful. The summary is not intended to be 
complete or comprehensive. Rather, it is provided to give the public a 
general sense of the issues addressed in the comments received. The 
views of individual commenters can be obtained by consulting the docket 
as indicated above.

Planning Factors

    We were offered a number of options on how to ensure that the seven 
new planning factors added by the TEA-21 are addressed in the 
metropolitan and statewide planning processes. One option is to include 
the TEA-21 statutory language in the planning regulation and provide 
maximum flexibility to States and MPOs to tailor approaches to local 
conditions. In addition, it was suggested that we amplify the basic 
statutory language in this regulation by providing information to 
States and MPOs, including best practices on approaches to considering 
the factors, and technical assistance on planning practices which 
integrate consideration of the seven factors. A third possibility was 
to develop specific criteria for the consideration of each of the seven 
factors, include the criteria in this regulation, and require that 
State DOTs and MPOs demonstrate compliance through the planning 
certification process.
    The vast majority of comments received on the planning factors, 
including those from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 
the National Association of County Engineers (NACE), the Association of 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), and the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 
supported a twofold approach: (1) To include the TEA-21 statutory 
language in the planning regulation without further regulatory 
requirements, and (2) to provide technical assistance and information 
on current practices to States and MPOs to aid them in consideration of 
the planning factors. An additional point raised, by State DOTs and 
MPOs in particular, was that guidance, if issued by the FHWA and the 
FTA, should not be construed as constituting new, binding requirements 
on State DOTs and MPOs.

Systems Operation and Management and Integration of Intelligent 
Transportation Systems Into the Planning Process

    The TEA-21 directs that operation and management of the 
transportation system requires greater attention during planning. 
Capital investment, especially for new capacity but also for system 
preservation, has dominated traditional transportation planning 
analyses and decisions. Continuing fiscal constraint, growing 
sensitivity to environmental impacts of infrastructure and the need for 
prudent management of infrastructure all lead to a heightened 
consideration of systems management and operational strategies as part 
of systems planning. The emergence of various Intelligent 
Transportation System (ITS) technologies as useful tools in the 
operation and management of the transportation system has also 
highlighted the need to focus increased attention in this area. An 
additional factor in treating ITS as part of system operation and 
management are the requirements of section 5206(e) of the TEA-21 
regarding the consistency of federally funded ITS projects (funded with 
highway trust fund dollars) with the National ITS Architecture.
    Many individual State DOTs, MPOs, and their national associations 
(AMPO and AASHTO) expressed the view that the planning factor requiring 
consideration of strategies to promote efficient system management and 
operation is sufficient to direct States and MPOs to consider 
operations and management issues as an integral part of their planning 
efforts. They indicated that the seven factors are all important and 
that to highlight consideration of any one factor above all others is 
inappropriate. Further, they felt that treating operations and 
management issues with any additional emphasis would be duplicative and 
is not necessary.
    Only one commenter, the Maricopa Association of Governments, 
explicitly addressed the ITS matter. This agency suggested that we 
implement a requirement for federally funded ITS projects to be in 
accord with a regional ITS plan that is developed through a cooperative 
process.

Cooperative Development of Revenue Forecasts

    The TEA-21 retained the basic requirement for financially 
constrained metropolitan plans and statewide and metropolitan 
transportation improvement programs (STIPs/TIPs).

[[Page 33925]]

The TEA-21 clarifies the requirement for cooperative development by 
States, MPOs, and transit agencies of estimated future levels of 
funding from local, State, or Federal sources that may reasonably be 
expected to be available to metropolitan areas.
    In general, many State DOTs and the AASHTO seek the greatest 
flexibility while MPOs and local governments seek provisions which 
would ensure that they get a ``fair share'' of Federal funding. The 
NACE, the AMPO, the National Association of Counties (NACO), and the 
Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) observe that a formal 
process should be required based upon consensus of the State, MPO, and 
transit agencies (where applicable) and that the process should be 
documented and implemented with an adequate phase-in period provided. 
The national associations and many of their constituent members 
commented that the process which has evolved over the past several 
years is inadequate for MPO and local agency needs, and that the 
Congress intended that this be rectified through the TEA-21 clarifying 
language. Both the NACE and the AMPO support the development of formal 
procedures, including decision rules for allocating funds and the 
development of internal and external dispute resolution and appeals 
processes to ensure that revenue forecasting is a truly collaborative 
process. The NACE also suggests that the FHWA and the FTA serve as 
``honest brokers'' between State transportation agencies and MPOs when 
there is disagreement on revenue forecasts and allocation.

Illustrative Projects

    Organizations and agencies, including the Indian Nation Council of 
Governments, the Public Policy Institute of California, the AMPO, and 
the EPA raised concerns about the need for coordination between States 
and MPOs in cases where illustrative projects are proposed to be added 
to metropolitan area plans or TIPs. Specifically, it was suggested that 
in metropolitan areas, MPOs should have explicit approval authority for 
the inclusion of such projects in transportation plans and TIPs and for 
the implementation of illustrative projects.
    On the whole, respondents supported a position that illustrative 
projects are important to them, but that such projects should not be 
included in the transportation plan or TIP conformity analysis until 
formally amended into the Plan/TIP. In addition, there was considerable 
support for an approach which requires MPO concurrence on projects that 
are proposed to be advanced to an MPO plan and/or TIP. The Texas 
Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the Colorado DOT 
expressed concern that illustrative projects would be allowed to 
circumvent the planning process. State DOTs, in particular, advocated 
allowing illustrative projects to be included in the conformity 
analyses for plans and TIPs in order that it may be demonstrated that 
they will not jeopardize the conformity of plans and TIPs.
    The AASHTO and several State DOTs felt that we are being too 
restrictive in our definition of a financially constrained plan. In 
short, these commenters request more flexibility. Some State DOTs, 
including the Texas, New Jersey, Missouri, and Virginia DOTs point out 
that they feel it entirely appropriate to conduct NEPA related project 
development activities and studies on such projects, outside of the 
fiscal constraint requirements. They endorse amending such projects 
into the plan and TIP when appropriate, and at that time trigger fiscal 
constraint and conformity requirements.

Annual Listing of Projects

    During the outreach process, the Missouri DOT, and the Denver 
Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) remarked that MPOs do not have 
the authority to obligate Federal funds and that States and transit 
agencies are the authorized recipients of Federal funds. Therefore, 
they suggest, the States, transit agencies, and/or the Federal 
government need to provide the necessary information to the MPOs in 
order that they may comply with the TEA-21 requirement for an annual 
listing of projects.
    The AMPO recommended that we establish and maintain a project 
monitoring system for the purpose of tracking Federal highway and 
transit obligations and that we make this system accessible to the MPOs 
in order that it might provide the basis for the annual listing of 
projects. These stakeholders are concerned that there be clear 
direction to the implementing agencies (States and transit agencies) 
for meeting this TEA-21 requirement. Further, they are concerned that 
MPOs, without the assistance of implementing agencies, do not have the 
necessary information to comply with this requirement. The American 
Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) felt the annual 
list should include all obligated funds, rather than just projects with 
Federal funding.
    The U.S. EPA believes a nationally uniform format for these lists 
should be developed and that such lists should be sent to State and 
Federal environmental agencies, the interagency consultation groups 
under the transportation conformity regulation, and others.
    The Transportation Equity Network and the Center for Community 
Change advocate the preparation of this list on a zip-code basis and 
cited a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) model. 
They suggest a zip-code based list is easily understandable by members 
of the public.
    Many of those who commented supported an approach which would 
provide easy public access to information, through a wide means of 
communication, as noted above. Many stakeholders, including the AMPO 
and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, opposed a process which would 
require the development of such a list through the public involvement 
process of the MPO. However, the American Planning Association, the 
Surface Transportation Policy Project, the Urban Habitat Program, the 
Tri-State Transportation Campaign, and the National Association to 
Defend NEPA, among others, supported the dissemination of the list, 
once developed, through easily accessed public distribution channels.

Coordination With Local Elected Officials in Non-Metropolitan Areas

    The NACO, the National Association of Development Organizations, 
the STPP, the York County Planning Commission (Pennsylvania), the 
Minnesota DOT, and the Georgia DOT all suggested that where regional 
planning organizations or councils of government exist, they be 
considered as an entity that States could work with to facilitate the 
engagement of elected officials. The NACE, U.S. House of Representative 
Bob Ney and others supported a two-phased approach: the FHWA and the 
FTA would provide the flexibility to States and local elected officials 
to develop a process, and then be provided ample time to document and 
formalize the process pursuant to the TEA-21. These commenters felt 
that the flexibility to tailor approaches is needed, but that 
documentation of the agreed upon approach is also needed to ensure it 
is implemented on a continuing basis.
    The National Association of Towns and Townships suggested more 
formal processes, like those that are in place in some States, where 
local governments form development districts or regional development 
commissions, modeled to some extent after the MPO process. The Land-of-
the-Sky Regional Council indicated that this approach is necessary to 
ensure rural officials have

[[Page 33926]]

a voice in decision making and that rural area needs are addressed. In 
addition, they suggest that such an approach ensures the coordination 
of a broad array of objectives relating to economic development, land 
use, and transportation. State DOTs in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Wyoming, New York, Virginia and Oklahoma suggested that 
existing local official consultation arrangements are adequate and that 
compliance with the TEA-21 provision merely requires documentation of 
existing arrangements.

20-Year Forecast Period in Transportation Plans

    Commenters, including AASHTO, ITE, Virginia DOT, Texas DOT, 
Washington DOT, and Kansas DOT supported a clarification which 
reiterates that transportation plans must be for a 20-year minimum 
forecast period at the time of plan adoption. Further, the Capital 
District Transportation Authority, the Regional Transit Agency in 
Denver, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Agency, the Texas 
Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Lackawanna County 
Regional Planning Commission and others felt that so long as 
metropolitan TIP updates and amendments (required every two years) are 
consistent with the metropolitan plan, then, a metropolitan plan update 
with a new 20-year forecast period should not be required. The STIP 
amendments and updates (also required every two years) would be 
governed by the State plan and its unique update schedule.

Transportation Conformity Related Issues

    There are several issues related to the EPA conformity regulation 
in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 that could be addressed in the revised 
planning regulations. These issues relate to clarifying requirements 
and definitions, and could lead to better integration of transportation 
and air quality planning, a principal objective of the EPA's 
regulation. These include:
    1. Consistency between metropolitan plan update cycle and the point 
at which a conformity determination is required.
    During the outreach process, and in many of the comments to the 
Options Paper, stakeholders indicated that they interpret the three-
year clock for a plan (and required conformity analysis) as starting 
from the date the MPO approves the metropolitan plan. Agencies, 
including the Utah DOT, the New York DOT, and others commented that 
this provides certainty about the exact time frame in which the plan 
needs to be updated and that this is the preferred approach to 
clarifying this issue.
    In nonattainment and maintenance areas, however, this approach is 
complicated by required MPO and Federal conformity findings. The 
AASHTO, and the Virginia DOT supported making the effective date of the 
plan the date of the Federal conformity finding. The AMPO indicated 
that it has no certainty as to when the FHWA and the FTA will approve a 
conformity determination on a metropolitan plan and thus, tying the 
effective date of the plan to an approval over which they feel they 
have no control does not, in its view, facilitate the planning process.
    2. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in State Implementation 
Plans (SIPs).
    Stakeholders, including the Bicycle Federation of America, the 
AASHTO, and the AMPO, observed that TCMs, for which Federal funding or 
approvals are required, must meet the TEA-21 planning requirements 
(i.e., come from a conforming and financially constrained 
transportation plan and TIP) and that attempting to circumvent this 
process, in order to place these measures in SIPs, undermines the 
transportation planning process.
    3. Definitions: TIP Amendments, Conformity Lapse, TIP Extensions.
    The FHWA and the FTA have considered clarifying ambiguous terms 
used in the ISTEA and the EPA's conformity regulation 40 CFR parts 51 
and 93. The New Jersey DOT, the AMPO, the Utah DOT, the Texas Natural 
Resources Conservation Commission, the Wisconsin DOT, and the DRCOG 
have endorsed the concept of clarification of definitions and terms and 
want an opportunity to comment on proposed definitions.

Cross Cutting Issues

    There are a number of options for implementing the cross-cutting 
planning and environmental provisions of the TEA-21. Both regulatory 
and non-regulatory approaches were suggested to us. The concepts 
discussed in the proposed rule have been coordinated with other 
administrations within the DOT and with other Federal agencies.

A. Public Involvement

    Some State and local agencies have expressed interest in ways to 
integrate the public involvement process related to plan and TIP 
development with public involvement process related to the project 
development. Several stakeholder groups have noted the difficulties in 
getting public input on long-range plans and TIPs and the tendency for 
the public to be more inclined to participate in project-specific 
opportunities for input. They indicated that this tends to frustrate 
the public involvement efforts of State and MPO planners to obtain 
input on long-range transportation plans. During the public outreach 
process, we sought input in this area, as well as examples of 
successful techniques and approaches to engage the public on both 
project-level proposals and long-range plans and TIPs.
    Comments from stakeholders were varied. However, there were a 
substantial number of comments that preferred the following two-fold 
approach: retaining the public involvement approach included in the 
planning regulation and modifying the NEPA regulation public 
involvement requirements to make our procedures the same (based on the 
FHWA, rather than the FTA, approach). This, they suggest, would allow 
States and MPOs to design processes that work best given local 
conditions and needs, yet would simplify the NEPA public involvement 
process by consolidating the FHWA and the FTA processes into one.
    In arguments supporting this option, a considerable number of 
commenters, including State DOTs in Montana, Washington, New Jersey, 
Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the AASHTO, pointed out 
distinctions between the type of public involvement that must occur in 
the planning process and that which is sought in the NEPA process. They 
point out that these two processes, tailored according to each need, 
can serve two different purposes and can work without conflict.
    There were a number of comments on whether freight interests and 
representatives of transit users should be represented with voting 
membership on MPO boards. These commenters, including the NACE, all 
opposed this idea and observed that putting persons representing 
particular interests on voting boards with elected officials would 
dilute the representation of duly elected officials. Yet, the Bicycle 
Federation of America supported putting representatives of bicyclists 
and pedestrians on voting boards of MPOs to ensure that they have an 
opportunity to comment on transportation plans and programs. The Texas 
Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Orange County 
Transportation Authority, the Arkansas DOT, and the Minnesota DOT 
supported a consistent approach to public involvement for both planning 
activities and the NEPA project

[[Page 33927]]

development activities and suggested basing this approach on the 
current FHWA NEPA regulation (23 CFR part 771). The EPA suggested that 
the DOT needs to assist community leaders, MPOs, and the public in 
establishing performance goals and local accountability for public 
participation.

B. Environmental Justice and Equity

    There were a considerable number of commenters, including the 
AASHTO and many State DOTs, that opposed any suggestion that equity in 
the distribution of resources should be a factor used to assess whether 
environmental justice issues are being adequately addressed. These 
comments ranged from claims that such language, if included in 
regulation, would contradict the hard-fought TEA-21 provisions on the 
allocation of transportation funds to claims that such language would 
result in preempting States and MPOs from selecting the transportation 
projects and programs in their respective jurisdictions. Deep concern 
about this option and opposition to this approach was widespread and 
shared by MPOs and transit agencies who feel that geographic sub-
allocation of funding based on demographics is short-sighted, and an 
inappropriate way to ensure the principles of environmental justice are 
honored.
    Many commenters indicated that they believe the Executive Order 
12898, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 78 
Stat. 241, as amended, and current NEPA requirements are sufficient to 
ensure that environmental justice concerns are addressed. The New 
Jersey DOT noted that benefits that accrue to users of investments 
should be a consideration in planning, and that this could possibly be 
measured in terms of mobility.
    The Fulton County and Georgia Department of Environment and 
Community Development focused on the composition of appointed officials 
on regional authorities. This agency suggested that such authorities or 
decision making bodies should reflect the demographics of the region. 
This agency also suggested that all elements of the population affected 
by a particular decision should be sought out for their input. In 
addition, this commenter suggested that controversial project decisions 
should be analyzed to ensure that they conform to the Environmental 
Justice Presidential Executive Order. Finally, the commenter suggested 
that all decisions should be analyzed to ensure that no particular 
geographic sub-area is being over-burdened with adverse conditions 
resulting from transportation investments.
    The U.S. Forest Service pointed out that lumping environmental 
justice and equity together is, in its view, a mistake. It suggested 
that the best option for public involvement, especially on issues 
concerning environmental justice, would be those procedures that 
incorporate collaboration processes early and often in the process.
    One agency made the case that we should consider requiring 
environmental justice analyses of plans, programs and processes, and of 
major projects. The commenting agency suggested that we could adopt a 
set of requirements for recipients of our funding. Requirements would 
include: (1) Community group or nonprofit organization inclusion as 
equal and full partners in proposed projects; (2) applications for 
funding include community input in project development; and (3) 
external reviewers would make project selection decisions.

C. Elimination of Major Investment Study as Separate Requirement

    Section 1308 of the TEA-21 eliminates the major investment study 
(MIS), described in 23 CFR 450.318, as a separate requirement and calls 
for integration of the MIS, as appropriate, into the planning and NEPA 
analyses required under 23 CFR parts 450 and 771. Proponents supporting 
this legislative action cited instances where major investment studies 
were said to duplicate NEPA requirements, were time consuming and 
costly, and importantly, that results were not usefully integrated into 
the project development activities under NEPA.
    The Options Paper articulated four general concepts (distilled from 
earlier stakeholder comments) focusing on strengthening the linkage 
between systems planning and project development. We thought this would 
facilitate broader consideration of transportation system development 
although, in some cases, commenters had other views as discussed below.
    In all of the options, the intent was to faithfully implement the 
TEA-21 provision that exempts plans and programs from consideration 
under NEPA. The MPOs would not be required to conduct NEPA analyses on 
plans. However, they could more effectively utilize the analyses 
conducted during planning activities to facilitate compliance with NEPA 
requirements at a project level. If an MPO, as part of its planning 
process, chose to conduct a NEPA analysis on a plan, it would be a 
permissible, voluntary decision. In addition to the four options 
presented for input, the Options Paper included a number of questions 
to solicit a better understanding of stakeholders' needs and concerns.
    There were a wide range of comments on the elimination of the MIS 
and on the options presented. The AASHTO felt that we should restrict 
regulatory language and allow States and MPOs to integrate the 
principles of the MIS, as appropriate, into planning and programming 
activities at their discretion. The AMPO suggested that we should allow 
States the flexibility to do the NEPA analysis in the planning process, 
as an option, but not as a requirement. In fact, many stakeholders were 
firmly opposed to any regulatory language integrating NEPA requirements 
into the planning process.
    Most of the commenters supported better linkages between planning 
and project development and many commenters, including the Minnesota 
DOT, supported the development of purpose and need during planning 
studies and sub-regional analysis, but only with the proviso that 
resource agencies and others allow the use of this information in the 
NEPA process. On the other hand, the Virginia DOT, for example, was 
opposed to developing project purpose and need during planning if there 
is a lack of participation of resource agencies and other parties to 
the NEPA process who could then require that analysis be redone or 
revisited during the formal NEPA process. There was near unanimous 
support for streamlining through reducing duplicative requirements and 
practices, such as, revisiting issues during project development that 
were, in commenters views, fully explored during planning.
    Many commenters supported options that offer the most flexibility 
to States and MPOs. The Florida DOT suggested blending the two most 
flexible options and developing regulatory language that ensures the 
principles of MIS not already addressed by other Federal regulations 
and statutes are included in the metropolitan planning and programming 
requirements. They also suggested that the planning regulation should 
include requirements for proactive agency coordination and public 
involvement, collaborative and multi-modal planning analysis of 
alternatives, and financial capacity analysis of alternatives. The 
Florida DOT also felt that the States should take the lead on these 
processes.
    The City of Irvine, Texas, suggested that the MIS process served as 
a good check on the system planning process and was a good way to build 
consensus and gain public input. Its traffic and

[[Page 33928]]

transportation director suggested that expanding the purpose and need 
statement would help narrow down alternatives prior to the NEPA 
process. The same individual also suggested looking at the entire 
process to identify what environmental information could be both 
practical and useful at each level of analysis.
    Additionally, and echoing earlier comments, stakeholders felt that 
the key to success in whatever approach is taken or required in 
regulation, is that Federal agencies participate early in the process 
and that they stay involved throughout the development of, and 
elimination of, alternatives. Consistent with this suggestion, the EPA 
commented that the only way they would give standing to previously 
conducted planning analyses during the NEPA project development stage 
is if there had been full opportunity for consultation in the 
metropolitan planning process, and if the resource agencies had 
``confidence that those plans were developed with environmentally 
desirable alternatives being considered.''

D. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts

    The Options Paper presented two scenarios which would help promote 
the consideration and evaluation of the cumulative and indirect effects 
of projects at a regional or large sub-regional scale, rather than on a 
project-by-project basis. In metropolitan areas, the former MIS 
requirement provided an opportunity for appropriate consideration of 
such effects across a sub-regional area where major, multiple 
transportation actions might be needed. With the elimination of the 
separate MIS requirement, the most logical venue for the consideration 
of such effects may be in the systems planning processes that support 
the development of metropolitan or statewide transportation plans.
    One approach to implementing cumulative and secondary impact 
consideration would require an appropriate evaluation of these effects 
in a regional or sub-regional analysis, thus obviating the need for 
repetitious, project-by-project review. Such an approach might also 
provide an opportunity for more effective and efficient mitigation of 
cumulative impacts and the enhancement of adversely affected resources. 
Another possibility is to rely on a systems planning analysis of 
cumulative and indirect effects. In the absence of a robust planning-
level review of these impacts, the project-by-project review as part of 
each NEPA evaluation would be required.
    Some commenters, including the AASHTO and the Bicycle Federation of 
America, interpreted the first option as a requirement for enhancement 
projects whenever there are cumulative or indirect effects identified. 
A large number of commenters opposed this approach, but for two 
different reasons. The Bicycle Federation of America felt that using 
transportation enhancement funding to counterbalance the adverse 
impacts of projects is unacceptable and that such mitigation should be 
part of the project cost and implementation from the outset. Others, 
including State DOTs in Utah, New York, and Virginia, believed that a 
regional or subregional analysis is unrealistic, excessively costly, 
and of no value unless the study results were accepted by State and 
Federal environment and resource agencies.
    The Oregon DOT observed that the appropriate level to consider 
cumulative and indirect impacts is at a regional or sub-regional 
planning level, but not as an analysis per se; rather, as a plan to 
preserve and enhance habitat and preserve resources for future 
generations. A few examples of plans that accomplish this objective 
were provided. The New Jersey DOT, Texas DOT, and the American Road and 
Transportation Builders Association stated that the ``science'' for 
evaluating the impacts is not available and that we should provide 
funding, education, and tools to assist MPOs and States to develop the 
appropriate analysis tools.
    Finally, the Lubbock and Byron College Station MPOs (both from 
Texas) indicated that cumulative and indirect impacts are, and should 
be, adequately addressed in consideration of the planning factors and 
that additional regulatory requirements are unnecessary and redundant.

Distribution Table

    For ease of reference, a distribution table is provided for the 
current sections and the proposed sections as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Old section                          New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
450.100............................  1410.100.
450.102............................  1410.102.
450.104............................  1410.104.
    Definitions....................    Definitions.
        None.......................      Conformity lapse.
        None.......................      Conformity rule.
        Management System..........      Congestion management system
                                          [Revised].
        Consultation...............      Consultation [Revised].
        Cooperation................      Cooperation [Revised].
        Coordination...............      Coordination [Revised].
        None.......................      Design concept.
        None.......................      Design scope.
        None.......................      Federally funded non-emergency
                                          transportation services.
        None.......................      Financial estimate.
        None.......................      Freight shipper.
        None.......................      Illustrative project.
        None.......................      Indian tribal government.
        None.......................      Interim Plan.
        None.......................      Interim Transportation
                                          Improvement Program.
        None.......................      ITS integration strategy.
        Maintenance area...........      Maintenance area [Revised].
        None.......................      Management and operation.
        Metropolitan planning area.      Metropolitan planning area.
        Metropolitan planning            Metropolitan planning
         organization.                    organization.
        Metropolitan transportation      Metropolitan transportation
         plan.                            plan.
        Nonattainment area.........      Nonattainment area.
        None.......................      Non-metropolitan local
                                          official.
        None.......................      Plan update.

[[Page 33929]]

 
        None.......................      Provider of freight
                                          transportation services.
        None.......................      Purpose and need.
        Regionally significant           Regionally significant project
         project.                         [Revised].
        State......................      State.
        State implementation plan..      State implementation plan.
        Statewide transportation         Statewide transportation
         improvement program (STIP).      improvement program (STIP).
        None.......................      Statewide transportation
                                          improvement program (STIP)
                                          extension.
        Statewide transportation         Statewide transportation plan.
         plan.
        None.......................      TIP update.
        None.......................      Transportation control
                                          measures.
        Transportation improvement       Transportation improvement
         program.                         program [Revised].
        Transportation management        Transportation management area.
         area.
        Transportation plan update.      Transportation plan update.
        None.......................      Twenty year planning horizon.
        None.......................      Urbanized area.
        None.......................      User of public transit.
450.200............................  1410.200.
450.202............................  1410.202.
450.204............................  1410.204.
450.206(a)(1)......................  Removed.
450.206(a)(2) through (a)(5).......  1410.206(a)(1) through (a)(4).
None...............................  1410.206(a)(5)[Added].
450.206(b).........................  Removed
450.208(a).........................  1410.208(a) [Revised].
450.208(b).........................  1410.208(b) [Revised].
450.210(a).........................  1410.210(a) [Revised].
450.210(b).........................  1410.210(e) [Revised].
450.212(a) through (f).............  1410.212(b) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.212(c) [Added].
450.212(g).........................  1410.212(e).
450.214............................  1410.214 [Revised].
450.216(a) introductory paragraph..  1410.216(a).
450.216(a)(1) through (a)(7).......  1410.216(c)(1) through (c)(7).
None...............................  1410.216(c)(8).
450.216(a)(8)......................  1410.216(c)(9).
450.216(a)(9)......................  1410.216(c)(10).
None...............................  1410.216(b) [Added].
450.216(b).........................  1410.216(d).
450.216(c).........................  1410.216(e) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.216(f) [Added].
450.216(d).........................  1410.216(g) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.218 [Added].
450.218............................  1410.220 [Revised].
450.220(a) introductory paragraph..  1410.222(a) introductory paragraph.
450.220(a)(1)......................  1410.222(a)(1) [Revised].
450.220(a)(2)......................  1410.222(a)(2) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.222(a)(3) through (a)(6)
                                      [Added].
450.220(a)(3)......................  Removed.
450.220(a)(4)......................  1410.222(a)(7).
450.220(a)(5)......................  1410.222(a)(8).
450.220(a)(6)......................  1410.222(a)(9).
None...............................  1410(a)(10) [Added].
450.220(b) and (c).................  1410.222(b) [Revised].
450.220(d).........................  1410.222(c) [Revised].
450.220(e).........................  1410.222(b)(3) [Revised].
450.220(f).........................  1410.222(d).
450.220(g).........................  1410.222(e).
450.222(a) through (d).............  1410.224(a) through (d) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.224(e) [Added].
450.224............................  Removed.
None...............................  1410.226 [Added].
450.300............................  1410.300 [Revised].
450.302............................  1410.302 [Revised].
450.304............................  1410.304 [Revised].
450.306(a).........................  1410.306(a) [Revised].
450.306(b) and (c).................  1410.306(b) and (c) [Revised].
450.306(d) and (g).................  1410.306(f) [Revised].
450.306(e).........................  1410.306(d).
450.306(f).........................  1410.306(e).
450.306(h) through (k).............  1410.306(g) through (j) [Revised].
450.308(a) through (d).............  1410.308(a) through (d) [Revised].
450.308(e).........................  1410.308(e) [Added].
450.310(a).........................  1410.310(a) [Revised].

[[Page 33930]]

 
450.310(b).........................  Removed.
None...............................  1410.310(b) [Added].
450.310(c).........................  1410.310(c) [Revised].
450.310(d).........................  1410.310(h) [Revised].
450.310(e).........................  1410.310(d) [Revised].
450.310(f).........................  1410.310(e) [Revised].
450.310(g).........................  1410.310(f).
None...............................  1410.310(g) [Added].
450.310(h).........................  1410.310(i).
450.312(a).........................  1410.312(a) [Revised].
450.312(b).........................  1410.312(b).
450.312(c).........................  1410.312(c) [Revised].
450.312(d).........................  1410.312(d).
450.312(e) through (i).............  1410.312(e) through (i) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.312(j) [Added].
450.314(a), (b) and (d)............  1410.314(a), (b) and (c) [Revised].
450.314(c).........................  Removed
450.316(a).........................  1410.316(a) [Revised].
450.316(b)(1)......................  1410.316(b) [Revised].
450.316(b)(2)......................  1410.316(c) [Revised].
450.316(b)(3)......................  1410.316(d) [Revised].
450.316(b)(4)......................  1410.316(e) [Revised].
450.316(b)(5)......................  1410.316(f) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.316(g) [Added].
450.316(c).........................  1410.316(h) [Revised].
450.316(d).........................  1410.316(i).
None...............................  1410.316(j) [Added].
450.318............................  1410.318 [Revised].
450.320(a).........................  Removed.
450.320(b), (c) and (d)............  1410.320(a), (b) and (c) [Revised].
450.322(a).........................  1410.322(a) [Revised].
450.322(b)(1) through (b)(7).......  1410.322(b)(1) through (b)(7)
                                      [Revised].
450.322(b)(8)......................  Removed.
450.322(b)(9) through (b)(11)......  1410.322(b)(8) through (b)(10)
                                      [Revised].
None...............................  1410.322(b)(11) [Added].
450.322(c) and (d).................  1410.322(c) and (d) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.322(e) [Added].
450.322(e).........................  1410.322(f).
None...............................  1410.322(g) [Added].
450.324(a) through (e).............  1410.324(a) through (e) [Revised].
450.324(f)(1) through (f)(3).......  1410.324(f)(1) through (f)(3)
                                      [Revised].
None...............................  1410.324(f)(4) [Added].
450.324(f)(4) and (f)(5)...........  1410.324(f)(5) and (f)(6)
                                      [Revised].
450.324(g) through (o).............  1410.324(g) through (o) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.324(p) [Added].
450.326............................  1410.326 [Revised].
450.328............................  1410.328 [Revised].
450.330(a) and (b).................  1410.330(a) and (b) [Revised].
None...............................  1410.330(c) [Added].
450.332(a).........................  1410.332(b) [Revised].
450.332(b).........................  1410.332(c) [Revised].
450.332(c).........................  1410.332(a) [Revised].
450.332(d) and (e).................  1410.332(d) and (e).
450.334(a)(1) through (a)(5).......  1410.334(a)(1) through (a)(5)
                                      [Revised].
None...............................  1410.334(a)(6) through (a)(8)
                                      [Added].
450.334(b) through (f).............  1410.334(b) through (f) [Revised].
450.334(g).........................  Removed.
None...............................  1410.334(g) [Added].
450.334(h).........................  1410.334(h) [Revised].
450.336............................  Removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section-by-Section Discussion

Section 1410.100  Purpose

    Current Sec. 450.100 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.100 and a 
technical correction would be made for a legislative citation.

Section 1410.102  Applicability

    Current Sec. 450.102 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.102. The 
text of this section is unchanged.

Section 1410.104  Definitions

    Current Sec. 450.104 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.104. The 
definition of ``conformity lapse'' and ``transportation control 
measure'' would be added and would have the meaning given it in the EPA 
conformity regulation provided at 40 CFR 93.101, as follows:
    The term ``lapse'' means that the conformity determination for a 
transportation plan or TIP has expired, and thus there is no currently 
conforming transportation plan and TIP.

[[Page 33931]]

    The term ``congestion management system'' would replace the 
previous definition of ``management system'' and would have the meaning 
given in the management system rule (23 CFR part 500).
    The term ``consultation'' would have minor wording changes, but no 
substantive changes.
    The word ``programming'' would be dropped from the definition of 
``coordination'' to reflect the fact that programming is a subset of 
the planning process. The project development processes reference would 
be added to reflect the provisions of proposed Sec. 1410.318.
    Definitions are proposed for ``design concept,'' ``design scope,'' 
``federally funded non-emergency transportation services,'' ``financial 
estimate,'' and ``freight shipper'' for clarification of legislative 
terminology.
    The term ``Governor'' remains the same.
    The terms ``illustrative project'' and ``ITS integration strategy'' 
would be added to reflect new legislative provisions. The term ``Indian 
Tribal Government'' is added for clarification.
    The terms ``Interim Plan'' and ``Interim Transportation Improvement 
Program'' are added to clarify the basis for advancing exempt and 
existing and new TCM projects during a conformity lapse. Interim plans 
and TIPs must be developed in a manner consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134. 
They must be based on previous planning assumptions and goals; 
appropriately adjusted for currently available projections for 
population growth, economic activity and other relevant data. The 
public must be involved consistent with the regular transportation plan 
and program development processes. Financial planning and constraint, 
and, as appropriate, congestion management systems requirements must be 
satisfied, and interim TIPs must be approved by the MPO and the 
Governor.''
    The term ``maintenance area'' would be revised to reflect the EPA 
definition used in the conformity regulation at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
    A definition is proposed for ``management and operation'' to 
reflect the new legislative policy direction from the TEA-21.
    The terms ``metropolitan planning area,'' ``metropolitan planning 
organization,'' ``metropolitan transportation plan,'' and 
``nonattainment area'' would remain unchanged, except for legislative 
references.
    A definition of ``non-metropolitan local official'' would be added 
to reflect the provisions of the TEA-21 regarding consultation between 
the State and these officials.
    The terms ``plan update,'' ``provider of freight services,'' and 
``purpose and need'' would be added to provide clarification of 
terminology.
    The definition of ``regionally significant'' reflects the US EPA 
conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
    The terms ``State,'' ``State implementation plan,'' ``statewide 
transportation plan,'' and ``statewide transportation improvement 
program'' would be unchanged.
    A definition for ``statewide transportation improvement program 
extension'' would be added for clarification.
    The term ``transportation improvement program'' would be revised 
slightly. The term ``TIP update'' would be added to provide information 
and direction on when a TIP must be updated . Anytime a non-exempt 
project is added to a TIP, the TIP must be updated. In attainment 
areas, the TIP must be updated whenever a regionally significant 
project is added to the TIP.
    The definition of ``transportation management area'' would be 
unchanged. The terms ``twenty year planning horizon, ``urbanized 
area,'' and ``user of public transit'' would be added to clarify 
legislative terminology.

Subpart B--Statewide Planning and Programming

Section 1410.200  Purpose of Regulations

    Current Sec. 450.200 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.200. The 
statement of purpose would be amplified by reflecting the declaration 
of purpose articulated in the TEA-21. This amplification also supports 
greater consistency of purpose between metropolitan and statewide 
planning.

Section 1410.202  Applicability of Regulation

    Current Sec. 450.202 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.202. The 
text would be revised to add ``project sponsors'' as agencies affected 
by the provisions of this section.

Section 1410.204  Definitions

    Current Sec. 450.204  would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.204. This 
section would remain the same.

Section 1410.206  Statewide Transportation Planning Process: Basic 
Requirements

    Current Sec. 450.206 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.206.
    A new Sec. 1410.206(a)(5) would be added. This section articulates 
the need for the State to develop and implement a process for 
demonstrating the consistency of plans and programs with the provisions 
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related legislation. We 
believe that such processes are already in place and that the 
clarification of minimum required information and analysis would 
benefit States and other agencies in meeting the existing requirement 
in the self-certification statement included in the STIP.
    Current Sec. 450.206(b) would be eliminated since it is redundant 
with Sec. 450.210(a).

Section 1410.208  Consideration of Statewide Transportation Planning 
Factors

    Current Sec. 450.208 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.208. 
Paragraph (a) would be revised by substituting the seven planning 
factors identified in the TEA-21 for those previously identified by the 
ISTEA. All parenthetical amplification has been deleted and the wording 
is that used by the statute. We plan to issue guidance regarding 
interpretation and application of the planning factors. We welcome 
suggestions on exemplary State and MPO procedures already in place or 
under development, and how those might be replicated in other State or 
MPO planning processes. We also recognize that it will take some time 
to develop syntheses of current practices and other tools. However, we 
will work with States, MPOs, and others to ensure that tools and 
examples are made available in a timely manner.
    We are proposing to revise paragraph (b) to focus on other 
considerations that the TEA-21 states should be addressed in the 
planning process. Specifically, the concerns of non-metropolitan local 
officials and Indian Tribal Governments and Federal land managing 
agencies are spelled out as a source of concerns that shall be 
considered.

Section 1410.210  Coordination of Planning Process Activities

    Current Sec. 450.210 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.210. 
Reflecting the simplification of language provided by the change in 
planning factors, paragraph (a) would be revised to focus on required 
planning coordination efforts. This general approach would eliminate 
the need to spell out in detail all of the specific coordination 
efforts previously articulated. We believe that the substance of 
coordination and the process overall remain intact even though the 
language is vastly simplified. References to the air quality planning 
process in Sec. 1410.210(b) reflect the

[[Page 33932]]

general role afforded the State transportation planning agency in the 
air quality planning process under 42 U.S.C. 7504 and the desirability 
of ensuring coordination of the air quality and transportation planning 
processes. The current wording of paragraph (b) would be retained as 
Sec. 1410.210(e) with the addition of ``safety concerns'' to the list 
of issues to be coordinated.

Section 1410.212  Participation by Interested Parties

    Current Sec. 450.212 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.212. 
Overall, current Sec. 450.212 (public involvement) would be broadened 
to focus on all facets of participation in the statewide planning 
process. For example, the newly articulated provisions regarding 
consultation with non-metropolitan officials would be added to this 
section. In addition, the paragraphs would be redesignated.
    Current Secs. 450.212(a) through (f) would become Sec. 1410.212(b) 
and be revised slightly to reflect increased emphasis for public 
involvement by minorities and low-income populations. The listing of 
interested parties to be afforded an opportunity to comment is revised 
to reflect the addition of transit users and freight service providers 
in statute. This listing reflects the wording of the statute. The FHWA 
and the FTA believe that the phrase ``and other interested parties'' 
reflects the intent of Congress to ensure that all citizens and groups 
are afforded an opportunity to participate. Comments are solicited as 
to whether there is a need to further elaborate the listing so as to 
demonstrate that the specific groups do not constitute an exclusive 
list of participants. A new Sec. 1410.212(d) would be added to 
encourage the participation of state air quality and other agencies in 
the transportation planning process. The existing Sec. 450.212(g) would 
become Sec. 1410.212(e).
    Section 1410.212(b)(2)(vii) makes provision for a periodic 
evaluation of its public involvement procedures by the State. The FHWA 
and the FTA believe that the assessment of such processes on a routine 
basis ensures their effectiveness and enhances continued improvement. 
The FHWA and the FTA also believe that the effectiveness of public 
involvement processes can be strengthened through the voluntary 
development of criteria on which to assess performance by States and 
MPOs. Where such criteria have been developed by the planning partners, 
the FHWA and the FTA will consider them in their certification reviews 
and planning findings, in addition to the generally applicable 
requirements for public involvement processes under Sec. 1410.212(b)(2) 
and Sec. 1410.316(b).
    A new Sec. 1410.212(c) focusing on participation by Federal 
agencies and Indian Tribal Governments would be added to support early 
involvement by these agencies and governments. Such involvement will 
facilitate streamlining of environmental decisions and ensure adequate 
consideration of key interests and viewpoints. The proposed wording for 
the involvement of Indian Tribal Governments reflects current 
deliberations within the Executive Branch regarding ways to more fully 
inform and engage Indian Tribal Governments in Federal decision making 
processes.

Section 1410.214  Content and Development of Statewide Transportation 
Plan

    Current Sec. 450.214 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.214. Two 
new sections would be added to reflect legislative changes. Proposed 
Sec. 1410.214(a)(3) would reflect the intelligent transportation system 
consistency requirement provided under section 5206(e) of the TEA-21. A 
separate rulemaking process will address the overall policy and 
procedures for architecture consistency. The wording reflects that 
portion of the consistency process that would be started in the 
statewide planning process for non-metropolitan area projects. We are 
interested in comments and observations regarding the feasibility of 
this process. In our view, the basic structure would reflect the 
activities normally conducted during transportation plan development. 
Proposed minor information collection additions to reflect utilization 
of electronic information sharing do not appear to be a major burden 
addition for planning.
    In addition, proposed Sec. 1410.214(d) would implement a provision, 
added by TEA-21, for an optional financial plan for statewide 
transportation plans. The TEA-21 did not impose a new requirement on 
the States. Rather, it offers up the option of a financial plan if 
decided upon by the statewide planning process participants. This 
section would spell out how this option would be approached through a 
statewide planning process.

Section 1410.216  Content and Development of Statewide Transportation 
Improvement Program

    Current Sec. 450.216 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.216. The 
provisions of former Sec. 450.216(a)(1) through (a)(9) would be 
redesignated and revised as Sec. 1410.216(c) providing detailed 
information on the STIP. A new Sec. 1410.216(b) would spell out the 
need to involve certain interests in the development of the STIP. The 
parties identified are the same as those identified for the development 
of the plan.
    Regarding the detailed information requested for projects 
identified in a STIP in Sec. 450.216(c), a new element 
(Sec. 1410.216(c)(8)) regarding ITS projects funded with highway trust 
funds would be added. This section reiterates the earlier planning 
level discussion and would direct that projects meeting the definition 
in Sec. 1410.322(b)(11) would be included in a regional architecture as 
indicated in the rulemaking on ITS architecture consistency.
    The new wording proposed in Sec. 1410.216(f) articulates the 
legislative provision of an optional financial plan for STIPs.

Section 1410.218  Relation of Planning and Project Development 
Processes

    A new Sec. 1410.218 would address an optional approach to linking 
statewide planning and project development processes in non-
metropolitan areas. It mirrors proposed Sec. 1410.318 which would apply 
to the metropolitan planning process. The intent of this section is to 
provide States with an option to more effectively rely on planning 
processes as a foundation for subsequent environmental and other 
project level analyses. Nothing in this section would mandate that a 
State adopt the option provided. If a State chose to take advantage of 
the option, the language lays out a framework to support the State's 
actions. This section also would make clear that project level actions 
shall be consistent with the State plan and program (see proposed 
Sec. 1410.218(e)). For further information, please see the preamble 
section related to metropolitan planning, proposed Sec. 1410.318.

Section 1410.220  Funding of Planning Process

    The content of the current Sec. 450.218 would be moved here with 
changes made to the references and the section heading.

Section 1410.222  Approvals, Self-certification and Findings

    Current Sec. 450.220 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.222. 
Current Sec. 450.220(a)(2) would be revised slightly. Proposed 
Sec. 1410.222(a)(3) through (a)(5) would articulate the existing 
legislative and regulatory authorities. Subsequent paragraphs would be 
redesignated and remain

[[Page 33933]]

generally unchanged. A new Sec. 1410.222(a)(10) would be added.
    We are proposing to modify existing Sec. 450.220(b) slightly to 
indicate the relationship of the planning finding to self-
certifications by the State. In addition, current language provided at 
Sec. 450.220(c) would be redesignated and combined with a new 
Sec. 1410.222(b) to clarify the relationship of findings with possible 
Federal actions.
    Proposed Sec. 1410.222(c) that details the approval period for a 
STIP would modify the text of current Sec. 450.220(d). STIP extensions 
(and by their inclusion, TIP extensions) would be limited to 180 days. 
Further, no STIP extension would be granted in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas. We believe that this policy eliminates substantial 
confusion regarding application of the Clean Air Act (CAA) conformity 
provisions in nonattainment and maintenance areas. We also believe that 
the focus should be on ensuring regular STIP updates, rather than 
finding a way to maintain funding flows that may conflict with the 
provisions of the CAA. The overall limit on extensions serves the same 
general purpose for attainment areas of ensuring that updates are 
accomplished rather than continuing to rely on out of date documents.

Section 1410.224  Project Selection

    Current Sec. 450.222 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.224 and the 
references to funding categories updated. Generally, however, it would 
remain unchanged. Proposed new paragraph (e) would provide the option 
for expedited procedures where agreed to by the planning participants. 
The current topic of this section (Sec. 450.224 phase-in requirements) 
would be eliminated.

Section 1410.226  Applicability of NEPA to Transportation Planning and 
Programming

    This section simply proposes to restate the provisions of the TEA-
21 which direct that decisions by the Secretary regarding plans and 
programs are not Federal actions subject to the provisions of the NEPA.

Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming

Section 1410.300  Purpose of Planning Process

    Current Sec. 450.300 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.300. This 
statement would remain essentially unchanged. The exceptions are a 
minor wording change for clarity of Federal expectations with regard to 
plan content and the addition of the word ``management'' to reflect the 
revised declaration of policy in 23 U.S.C. 134(a) as revised by the 
TEA-21.

Section 1410.302  Organizations and Processes Affected by Planning 
Requirements

    Current Sec. 450.302 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.302. The 
principal change would be to add organizations charged with ``project 
development'' in metropolitan areas to the affected organizations. This 
would reflect the general emphasis of the revised rule on more 
efficiently and effectively linking planning and project development as 
a means to streamlining decision making and towards ensuring that 
projects are based on the planning process. The statutory authorizing 
language reference would be added also.

Section 1410.304  Definitions

    Current Sec. 450.304 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.304. This 
section would remain unchanged with the exception of referencing 
definitions in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.

Section 1410.306  What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization and How 
Is It Created

    Current Sec. 450.306 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.306. Minor 
changes are proposed for existing Sec. 450.306(a) to provide clarity 
regarding the designation of multiple MPOs serving a single 
metropolitan area. The wording would more clearly emphasize a 
preference for not designating more than one MPO in metropolitan areas. 
We believe that this is consistent with the intent of legislative 
language changes and the principles of comprehensive transportation 
planning for metropolitan areas.
    Current Secs. 450.306(b) and (c) would remain unchanged. Current 
Sec. 450.306(d) and (g) would be combined and redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.306(f), Sec. 450.306(e) would be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.306(d) and Sec. 450.306(f) would be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.306(e). Editing for clarity of intent would simplify the 
language. Current Sec. 450.306(e) would be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.306(d). Sections 450.306(h) through (k) would be redesignated 
as Secs. 1410.306 (g) through (j), respectively, and revised.

Section 1410.308  Establishing the Geographic Boundaries for 
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Areas.

    Current Sec. 450.308 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.308. 
Revisions made by the TEA-21 to 23 U.S.C. 134 require the modification 
of existing Sec. 450.308, which also would be edited for clarification 
of language. Boundaries in effect as of June 9, 1998, the date of 
presidential signature for the TEA-21, would remain in effect unless 
modified by the policy board of the MPO in cooperation with the 
Governor. The provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134, as modified by the ISTEA, 
required planning area boundaries to be extended to the limits of the 
nonattainment area where that area was larger than the transportation 
planning area.
    New MPOs designated after June 9, 1998, would have to take into 
account the existence of non-attainment and maintenance areas and 
reflect them as agreed to by the Governor and local officials in the 
proposed metropolitan planning area boundaries.
    In either case, the existing MPO or new MPO, non-attainment and 
maintenance areas left outside the metropolitan planning areas would 
have to be addressed in an agreement between the State and the MPO as 
proposed at paragraph Sec. 1410.310(f).
    The option of extending the metropolitan planning area boundary to 
the limits of the metropolitan statistical area would be retained as 
provided in the statute. This continuation and the changes discussed in 
the preceding paragraphs are captured in proposed revisions included in 
Sec. 1410.308(a).
    The wording of current Sec. 450.308(b) would remain unchanged. The 
provisions of current Sec. 450.308(c) would be slightly modified for 
clarification. No changes are proposed for Sec. 450.308(d).
    A new Sec. 1410.308(e) proposes to address the expenditure of 
Surface Transportation Program funds attributable to a Transportation 
Management Area (TMA). The intent of the section is to more clearly 
state, what has been the FHWA and the FTA policy since 1992, that these 
funds cannot be expended outside the boundaries of the metropolitan 
area. They may be expended anywhere inside the metropolitan area 
including areas outside the urbanized area.

Section 1410.310  Agreements Among Organizations Involved in the 
Planning Process

    Current Sec. 450.310 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.310. 
Current Sec. 450.310(a) would be retained in its current form except 
for the elimination of a reference to corridor and subarea studies. A 
new proposed Sec. 1410.310(b) would state the overall relationship 
between planning and project development activities. This section would 
support the option for conducting project development activities as 
planning activities under the general relationship between

[[Page 33934]]

planning and project development as established under the proposed new 
Sec. 1410.318.
    Current Sec. 450.310(c) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.310(c) 
and the text would remain unchanged except for minor wording revisions 
for clarification. Section 450.310(d) would be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.310(h) and revised for clarity. Current Sec. 450.310(e) would 
be revised by dropping the reference to a definition of a prospectus in 
Sec. 450.104. A definition is not required since the nature of 
prospectus is well established in practice as a statement of ongoing 
planning activities that continue from year-to-year as a foundation for 
producing transportation plans and programs.
    The current Sec. 450.310(f) would be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.310(e) and modified slightly by a wording change to support 
the revisions to the air quality and transportation planning area 
boundary relationship. The change is intended to suggest that actions 
that would leave portions of nonattainment and maintenance areas 
outside a metropolitan transportation planning area, but contiguous to 
such an area, should be addressed in consultation with the FHWA, the 
FTA, and the EPA. The decision to leave such areas outside a 
metropolitan planning area is the responsibility of the Governor and 
the MPO acting cooperatively.
    A proposed new Sec. 1410.310(g) has been added to reflect the 
impact of section 5206(e) of the TEA-21. The proposed section requires 
an agreement among agencies planning and implementing ITS projects and 
is intended to ensure that the planning and operating agencies 
specifically agree on an approach to integrated ITS implementation 
consistent with the options provided in the National ITS Architecture. 
This provision would direct that this relationship should be covered by 
agreement within the metropolitan planning area and addresses the 
policy and operational issues affecting ITS implementation. Where 
current agreements do not already address these relationships, they 
would be modified to reflect the provisions of this section. Where 
possible, existing agreements, per the provisions of Sec. 1410.310(i), 
would be modified to incorporate the ITS integration strategy required 
under proposed Sec. 1410.322(b)(11).
    A new proposed Sec. 1410.310(h) would permit a single agreement for 
all activities under Sec. 1410.310 where agreed to by the participants. 
The wording in current Sec. 450.310(h) remains unchanged from its 
current text and would be included in a redesignated Sec. 1410.310(i).

Section 1410.312 Planning Process Organizational Relationships

    Current Sec. 450.312 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.312. 
Existing Sec. 450.312(a) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.312(a) and 
modified in several places to reflect wording changes in the subsequent 
provisions of Secs. 1410.314 through 1410.322. A phrase would be made 
to reflect international border planning with Canada and Mexico.
    The text of current Sec. 450.312(b) would be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.312(b) and remain unchanged.
    The organization of current Sec. 450.312(c) and some of the 
previous content would be modified and redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.312(c). The content modifications are intended to clarify how 
MPO transportation planning activities and planning products are 
related to air quality planning activities and products. Under 42 
U.S.C. 7504, MPOs and State transportation planning organizations are 
expected to have a formal role in air quality planning. At another 
level, the transportation and air quality planning processes would work 
more efficiently if the responsible agencies were more actively engaged 
in each other's processes. Hence, the proposed rule would more 
explicitly direct MPOs to participate in air quality planning 
activities. We would expect that the air quality planning agencies, 
under the U.S. EPA's conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93), 
would be actively engaged in the transportation planning process. The 
development of transportation control measures is specifically revised 
to clarify that new TCMs proposed for funding with FHWA and/or FTA 
transportation funds or requiring an FHWA or FTA approval can occur 
during a conformity lapse, if new TCMs are included in an interim plan 
and interim TIP that satisfy the provisions of this part and are 
approved into a SIP with identified emission reduction benefits 
(specified but not necessarily credited in the applicable SIP). The 
proposals herein implement and clarify the planning regulations 
consistent with the ``National Memorandum of Understanding between the 
US Department of Transportation and the US Environmental Protection 
Agency,'' which was signed on April 19, 2000. This memorandum of 
understanding outlines procedures for advancing new TCMs during a 
conformity lapse.
    Current Sec. 450.312(d) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.312(d) 
and remain unchanged.
    Minor wording changes would be made to current Sec. 450.312(e) 
[proposed Sec. 1410.312(e)] to clarify required coordination in 
circumstances where more than one MPO is involved in transportation 
planning for a contiguous metropolitan area, including multi-state 
areas.
    Proposed Sec. 1410.312(f) (current Sec. 450.312(f)) would be 
revised for text clarity. Proposed Sec. 1410.312(g) (current 
Sec. 450.312(g)) would be revised to remove a specific reference to 
cooperative development of the congestion management system (CMS) since 
it is incorporated in the management system regulation provided at 23 
CFR part 500.
    Current Sec. 450.312(h) is redesignated as Sec. 1410.312(h) and 
revised. Proposed Sec. 1410.312(i) (current Sec. 450.312(i)) would be 
revised by replacing the words ``involved appropriately'' with 
``consulted'' to more accurately reflect the statutory intention.
    A new Sec. 1410.312(j) is proposed to reflect the legislative 
changes of the TEA-21 which added several new discretionary grant 
programs. This section asserts that the projects (other than planning 
and research activities) funded through these programs must be 
addressed through the transportation planning process and included, as 
appropriate, in transportation plans and programs. Planning and 
research activities funded under the referenced programs are addressed 
in the Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWP) for each metropolitan 
planning area.

Section 1410.314 Planning Tasks and Work Program

    Current Sec. 450.314(a) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.314(a). 
The provisions of this overall section remain largely unchanged except 
for wording revisions for clarity or to reflect modifications in other 
sections, e.g., elimination of the MIS proposed under Sec. 1410.318. 
One change to Sec. 450.314(a) proposes to drop the reference to TMAs. 
This is intended to suggest that all MPOs have a responsibility to meet 
the requirements of this section. It does not prevent a smaller, 
attainment area MPO from proposing a prospectus or a simplified work 
program. Paragraph (c) of current Sec. 450.314 would be revised and 
redesignated as Sec. 1410.314(c). A new paragraph (d) will be added as 
Sec. 1410.314(d).

Section 1410.316  Transportation Plan Development

    Current Sec. 450.316 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.316. 
Overall this section has extensive proposed revisions for several 
reasons. The

[[Page 33935]]

metropolitan planning factors were revised by the TEA-21; reduced in 
number from 16 to 7. The wording in Sec. 450.316(a) would be revised by 
substituting the seven planning factors identified in the TEA-21 for 
those previously identified by the ISTEA. All parenthetical 
amplification would be removed and the wording would be the same as 
that used in the statute. We plan to issue guidance regarding 
interpretation and application of the planning factors. This will be 
especially true of new planning goals, such as safety, environmental 
considerations, and operations and management, which have been added to 
the list.
    The US EPA has suggested that the FTA and the FHWA amplify and 
elaborate the detail in the regulation regarding the meaning of the 
planning factors. The agencies have kept the language as stipulated in 
the statute. However, the agencies believe that substantial benefits 
can be realized by States and MPOs in applying the planning factors, 
under Secs. 1410.214 and 1410.316(a), aggressively, most notably in 
supporting the provisions of Sec. 450.318 below. The planning factors 
can serve as a key focal point for developing plans and programs and 
MPOs and States may develop specific rationales to guide their 
utilization in the plan development process. Indeed, where States and 
MPOs choose to develop their own performance criteria to monitor the 
results of planning, they may be well served by utilizing the planning 
factors as a base for those criteria. The FTA and the FHWA will support 
efforts by States and MPOs to utilize such criteria by addressing them 
in Federal reviews and assessments. In addition, the agencies will seek 
to develop specific examples of how the planning factors can support 
effective plan development and environmental streamlining. 
Streamlining, as an activity to reduce project level burden and delay, 
could be more readily achieved if the planning process provides an 
early consideration of the planning factors.
    The FHWA and the FTA welcome suggestions on exemplary State and MPO 
procedures or data collection efforts already in place or under 
development and how those might be replicated in other State or MPO 
planning processes. We are interested also in specialized training 
efforts, e.g., safety, that may have been developed or needed by States 
and MPOs. We also recognize that it will take some time to develop 
syntheses of current practices and other tools. However, it is our 
intent to work with States, MPOs, and others to ensure that tools and 
examples are made available in a timely manner.
    The public involvement provisions would be modified for clarity and 
would reflect the provisions of Presidential Executive Order 12898 on 
Environmental Justice and implementing DOT and FHWA orders. Similar 
changes have been made regarding references to compliance with the 
provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 
organization of Sec. 450.316 would be modified slightly to reflect 
these changes and to provide clarity in understanding them.
    The listing of interested parties to be afforded an opportunity to 
comment is revised to reflect the addition of transit users and freight 
service providers in statute. This listing reflects the wording of the 
statute. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the phrase ``and other 
interested parties'' reflects the intent of Congress to ensure that all 
citizens and groups are afforded an opportunity to participate. 
Comments are solicited as to whether there is a need to further 
elaborate the listing so as to demonstrate that the specific groups do 
not constitute an exclusive list of participants.
    Section 1410.316(b)(9) makes provision for a periodic evaluation of 
its public involvement procedures by the State. The FHWA and the FTA 
believe that the assessment of such processes on a routine basis 
ensures their effectiveness and enhances continued improvement. The 
FHWA and the FTA also believe that the effectiveness of public 
involvement processes can be strengthened through the voluntary 
development of criteria on which to assess performance by States and 
MPOs. Where such criteria have been developed by the planning partners, 
the FHWA and the FTA will consider them in their certification reviews 
and planning findings.
    Relatively small scale modifications to the public involvement 
provisions are proposed as follows: (1) The provision of timely 
information will be modified to encourage engagement of the public 
during the early stages of plan and TIP development; (2) demonstration 
of timely response to comments received would be revised to highlight 
response to input from minority and low-income populations; and (3) 
periodic MPO evaluations of public involvement effectiveness would now 
include an emphasis on the success obtained in engaging minority and 
low-income populations.
    Current Sec. 450.316(b)(2) is proposed to be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.316(c). Additional attention is drawn to the provisions of 
Executive Order 12898 and implementing DOT and FHWA orders. 
Specifically, data necessary for the purposes of conducting planning 
analyses for plan development are identified as contributors to the 
demonstration of compliance with the Executive Order. We are required 
to assure compliance with the Executive Order and will rely on the data 
identified under this section for that purpose. In addition, the 
statutory and regulatory requirements identified in this section apply 
to State DOTs, MPOs, and transit operators. Consequently, additional 
data and analyses are proposed as a basis for demonstrating that plans 
and resulting programs will be consistent with the referenced statutory 
requirements. Additional guidance will be issued to refine and amplify 
the basic framework established by these provisions. We believe, 
however, that much of the proposed data specification was previously 
required for assertions of compliance with Title VI and related 
statutory authorities and, hence, should not require a major new data 
collection effort.
    In addition to the revised requirements of this section, the FHWA 
and the FTA continue to encourage attention to the selection of members 
of boards and committees that represent the demographic profile of the 
metropolitan planning area served. The ability to meet the needs of the 
community is enhanced by efforts designed to provide voice to as many 
segments of its membership as possible. The FHWA and the FTA solicit 
comments regarding additional strategies that may be effective in 
serving the interests of inclusiveness in transportation decision 
making.
    Current Secs. 450.316(b)(3) through 450.316(b)(5) would be 
redesignated as Sec. 1410.316(d) through (f). Current Sec. 450.316(c) 
would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.316(g) and revised for clarity. 
Current Sec. 450.316(d) is proposed to be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.316(h).
    Proposed Sec. 1410.316(i) is offered to encourage the coordination 
of federally funded non-emergency transportation services per the 
requirements of section 1203(d)(4) of the TEA-21. The section simply 
restates the legislative language.

Section 1410.318  Relation of Planning and Project Development 
Processes

    The TEA-21 eliminates the major investment study (MIS) as a 
separate requirement as set forth in the planning regulations and calls 
for integration of the requirement, as appropriate, into the planning 
and NEPA analyses required under proposed 23 CFR parts 1410 and 1420. 
Accordingly, current Sec. 450.318

[[Page 33936]]

would be revised to focus on the relationship between the planning and 
project development processes.
    Section 1308 of the TEA-21 directs the US DOT Secretary to 
eliminate the separate MIS and its elements and integrate the remaining 
aspects of the MIS into the planning and NEPA regulations. The FHWA and 
FTA have attempted to do this by focusing on the fundamental basics of 
the MIS process, i.e., the cooperative relationship of planning and 
project development agencies, the early engagement of permit and 
resource agencies, flexible definition of the need to do analyses as 
decided by the participants and an appropriate level of public 
involvement. The MIS process did not require a specific methodology for 
studying alternatives, a specific set of alternatives to study, a 
particular format for reports, a specific public involvement or 
analytical process, or a specific set of projects to which the MIS 
applied. The US EPA has specifically suggested that the MIS process 
required and should require the use of cost benefit, costs 
effectiveness analysis and/or other related analytical techniques. The 
logic of this proposal is that early, effective consideration of 
social, environmental and economic considerations in planning analyses 
should permit more expedited consideration of these same issues, at a 
more micro level of detail, for subsequent NEPA analyses. By linking 
the planning and project development processes more effectively, the 
participants can reduce time required, analytical redundancy and 
process requirements by utilizing previously conducted work as a basis 
for subsequent analyses and efforts. It is the belief of the FTA and 
the FHWA that an aggressive utilization of the options provided here 
can strengthen the planning process and streamline the project 
development process substantially. The agencies are specifically 
interested in comments that address the extent to which the remaining 
aspects of the MIS process have been included in this proposal and 
suggestions for encouraging States and MPOs to more effectively take 
advantage of the options provided herein.
    The overall structure of the relationship emphasizes alternatives 
for planning and sponsor agencies to integrate decision processes to 
take advantage of potential streamlining opportunities and for early 
consultation among the MPOs, State DOTs, and transit operators. The 
planning process is charged with providing an initial statement of 
purpose and need for proposed transportation improvements, identifying 
and evaluating alternatives (including, but not limited to, design 
concept and scope) and selecting an alternative and including it in the 
plan. This statement would not necessarily lead to a determination of 
purpose and need on a project-by-project basis for transportation 
improvements normally grouped (not specified individually) in a plan. 
An alternative could be a programmatic statement of purpose and need 
that identifies the basis for investing resources in a given 
transportation area such as safety or pavement resurfacing.
    The consideration of alternatives and other planning level analyses 
done in support of plan development do not eliminate the need for 
considering all reasonable alternatives during the NEPA process. 
However, to the extent that the planning participants anticipate the 
required consideration of all reasonable alternatives in the planning 
process, they will significantly enhance, in our view, the efficiency 
of the NEPA process. Well documented, thorough planning analyses should 
permit the NEPA process to accept this information as a sound basis for 
reducing the alternatives considered and the detail required for others 
in the NEPA process. Provision also is made for policy preferences and 
guidance from planning policy bodies to be included on the record for 
consideration in subsequent decision steps.
    Examples of issues that might be covered in the planning level 
consideration of alternatives include: the consideration of 
alternatives that in the past have been rejected for not fully meeting 
traditional concepts of purpose and need; more broadly defined purpose 
and need statements during the planning stage so that a full range of 
modal alternatives are considered; an alternatives analysis that 
examines ``no-build'' alternatives that use transportation demand 
strategies; and, flexibility to encourage the selection of alternatives 
which may have lower than originally desired levels of transportation 
service if there are cost, time, and impact savings. The FHWA and the 
FTA will work with the US EPA on guidance and training in this regard.
    A number of alternative sources of information are identified as a 
basis for the development of purpose and need, a planning level 
analysis of alternatives (primarily at the level of concept and scope) 
and specification of a project for inclusion in the transportation 
plan. These information sources are utilized at the discretion of 
participating agencies (MPO, State DOT, and transit agency) acting 
jointly. The underlying logic of the proposal is that if the options to 
document thoroughly and analyze fully are chosen, this effort will lead 
to expedited analytical efforts in subsequent NEPA analyses. Less 
robust analytical and documentation efforts would force elaboration and 
analysis of alternatives during the NEPA process.
    The utilization of planning analyses as a basis for project 
development actions is explained. In particular the regulatory language 
specifies that the results of planning analyses shall serve as input to 
the environmental process under proposed 23 CFR part 1420 (current part 
771), and other project level actions. Proposed Sec. 1410.318(c) 
references the contents of proposed Sec. 1420.201 to provide a frame of 
reference to data and analytical expectations in subsequent NEPA 
process steps, i.e., the standard of analysis expected by the NEPA 
process for projects. Planning, systems level, analyses that address 
these data and analytical requirements can improve the efficiency of 
the NEPA process and reduce data and analytical efforts required.
    The ability to streamline the planning and environmental 
relationship is dependent, in part, on appropriate decisions made by 
the planning participants. They can choose to develop a rigorous basis 
for establishing transportation purpose and need, identifying 
alternatives for evaluation, and assessing these alternatives through 
the planning process. Alternatively, they can choose to apply minimal 
analytical techniques. At the time the NEPA analyses are undertaken for 
project development, the agencies participating in that process will 
review the materials provided by the planning process. Minimal analyses 
in planning will have to be supplemented and elaborated to satisfy the 
needs of the NEPA process. More robust planning analyses should allow 
the NEPA process to reduce the need for revisiting and re-evaluating 
planning level studies and instead proceed to focus on project level 
considerations of location and design. Consequently, the consideration 
of alternatives should be more quickly and efficiently accomplished.
    A similar option exists with regard to documentation of planning 
results. A set of planning activities to be documented to facilitate 
this linkage is specified in Sec. 1410.318(a)(2). The option to 
document is a discretionary option of the planning participants in 
cooperation with appropriate project sponsors. The focus is not on the 
details of documents but rather on the act of documenting the results 
of analyses and studies. Robust analyses coupled with sound 
documentation will permit more effective linkage and utilization of

[[Page 33937]]

planning analyses and data collection in subsequent NEPA analyses.
    The early involvement of Federal and State environmental and permit 
agencies is encouraged under proposed Sec. 1410.318(d) to facilitate 
linking planning and environmental processes. The involvement of the 
FTA is required where planning studies are proposed to satisfy 
requirements of the Major Capital Investment Program administered by 
the FTA under 49 CFR part 611. The TEA-21 directive that Federal 
decisions on plans and programs are not considered a Federal action for 
NEPA purposes is restated in proposed Sec. 1410.318(f) (the FHWA and 
the FTA do not approve plans but they do approve the State TIP which is 
not subject to NEPA). Finally, the basis for Federal project actions in 
plans and TIPs is specifically stated. The intent of this latter 
provision, in proposed Sec. 1410.318(g), is to clearly substantiate the 
need for projects to be in plans before Federal actions can be taken on 
them. A particular point is made that project actions and the 
appropriate phase of a project must be in a plan and TIP before project 
actions can be taken.

Section 1410.320  Congestion Management System and Planning Process

    Current Sec. 450.320 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.320 and 
would be revised to reflect the impact of the issuance of the 
Management System rule (23 CFR part 500) and the National Highway 
System Act of 1995, Public Law 104-59, 109 Stat. 568. The latter made 
management systems optional, except for the congestion management 
system in transportation management areas (TMA). Hence, the proposed 
language focuses on the continuing provisions of the congestion 
management system in TMAs, including the limitation on single occupant 
vehicle capacity increases which remains unchanged under the TEA-21. 
With the exception of current Sec. 450.320(a) which would be removed, 
the remainder of the overall section is generally unchanged.
    One option considered, but not included in this proposal, is to 
revise 23 CFR part 500 by transferring the provisions dealing with the 
congestion management system to the metropolitan planning rule. The 
FHWA and the FTA would welcome comments on this idea with regard to its 
utility and appropriateness.

Section 1410.322  Transportation Plan Content

    Current Sec. 450.322 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.322. 
Current Sec. 450.322(a) would be modified by adding a discussion of 
data assumptions for plan updates. Specifically, the language would 
clarify what must be considered in preparing a plan update, as a 
minimum. It also would reaffirm that the MPO must approve the content 
of a new plan or reaffirm existing plan content in conducting an 
update. We have chosen to provide this clarification in response to 
requests from stakeholders and to emphasize that a plan is a critical 
document. Piecemeal revisions that incrementally revise plans do not 
constitute an appropriate, accurate or meaningful basis for plan 
development, implementation, and/or subsequent decision making.
    A proposed minor revision would be made to Sec. 450.322(b)(2) to 
reflect the emphasis on management and operation of the transportation 
system.
    Current Secs. 450.322(b)(3) through (b)(6) would remain unchanged 
with the exception of minor edits for clarity. Current 
Sec. 450.322(b)(7) would be revised to reflect the elimination of the 
MIS and redesignated as Sec. 1410.322(b)(7). Current Sec. 450.322(b)(8) 
would be removed. Current Secs. 450.322(b)(9) and (10) would be 
redesignated as Secs. 1410.322(b)(8) and (9), respectively.
    Current Sec. 450.322(b)(11) would be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.322(b)(10) and remain generally unchanged except for the 
addition of the reference to ``illustrative projects.'' Illustrative 
projects have no standing for transportation or air quality purposes 
until such time as a financing source has been identified and they have 
been formally amended into the plan by action of the MPO. At that point 
they could be added to a TIP as a project to be advanced. We expect 
that the MPO would coordinate its actions with the State DOT and 
transit operator and vice versa. Once formally added to a plan and TIP, 
these projects may be included in regional conformity findings, 
advanced, and subject to appropriate project level actions by the FHWA 
and the FTA.
    The remainder of Sec. 450.322(b)(10) would remain generally 
unchanged since the TEA-21 either did not change key provisions or 
reenforced previous provisions required through regulation (e.g., 
cooperative estimates of revenue for plan development). With regard to 
estimated revenues, we have opted to rely on a cooperative process of 
State, MPO and transit operator estimation based on local preferences 
and arrangements. We would support the cooperative process through the 
provision of guidance and identification of good practices for 
emulation.
    A new Sec. 1410.322(b)(11) proposes to focus on intelligent 
transportation systems (ITS) and the National ITS Architecture. As 
provided in section 5206(e) of TEA-21, we have issued interim guidance 
on compliance with this new legislative requirement. This proposed 
wording is intended to be an integral element of the proposed 
regulatory issuance on compliance with this requirement. A companion 
NPRM issuance will be made for project development and national policy 
on consistency with the National ITS Architecture. It will support 
planning as the initial stage at which this consistency must begin. We 
are issuing the planning component through this NPRM and solicit 
comments on this proposal.
    The existing wording of Sec. 450.322(c) would be redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.322(c) and would be modified to add users of public transit 
and freight shippers as directed by the TEA-21. A minor modification 
would be made to Sec. 450.322(d) (proposed Sec. 1410.322(d)) to clarify 
that if either the MPO or we fail to make a conformity determination, 
the Governor or the Governor's designee must be notified.
    A new Sec. 1410.322(e) would refine the operating approach to plan 
changes and updates. The question of a 20-year horizon has received 
substantial discussion as indicated previously. As part of the 
clarification of the meaning of the term ``20-year horizon,'' we are 
proposing that a plan is valid for transportation purposes if it has a 
twenty year horizon at the time of adoption. If no major changes are 
made to the plan, e.g., the addition of a non-exempt project, then the 
plan would remain valid as a basis for Federal actions until its next 
regularly scheduled update. This proposal also indicates that it is our 
intent that conformity determinations by the FHWA/FTA be made as close 
as possible to the MPO plan conformity finding, i.e., as soon as 
possible after MPO plan adoption and conformity determination actions 
are taken. The three year period and the twenty year horizon would 
start at the point a Federal conformity determination is made on the 
plan for a nonattainment or maintenance area. This will eliminate 
confusion over the validity of the transportation plan in relation to 
air quality conformity determination. A new conformity determination 
would be required within eighteen months of certain SIP actions 
according to 40 CFR 93.104, even if the three year period had not 
expired at the time. In an attainment area, the plan would be valid for 
five

[[Page 33938]]

years from MPO approval so long as no regionally significant projects 
are added.
    The current requirement of Sec. 450.322(e) that new plans and plan 
updates be provided to us would be included in proposed 
Sec. 1410.322(f).
    A new Sec. 1410.322(g) would be added to authorize utilization of 
an interim plan during an anticipated conformity lapse. It is the 
intent of this section to permit funding of existing exempt, 
transportation control measures (TCMs) and other projects that can 
advance under a conformity lapse in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 
93. New TCMs under this provision can only be approved or funded during 
a conformity lapse when they have been included in an approved SIP with 
identified emission reduction benefits (but not necessarily credited in 
the applicable SIP). Inclusion in the SIP would have to occur before 
such TCMs can be advanced into completion of the NEPA process, design, 
right of way acquisition and/or construction). An interim plan may be 
used during a conformity lapse to advance projects that can proceed 
according to 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, including existing TCMs and 
existing and new exempt projects. It is the expectation of the US DOT 
that this provision would be utilized for new TCM projects where a 
conformity lapse would persist for six months or longer. An interim 
plan may be used for periods of less than six months to advance 
existing TCM and existing and new exempt projects.

Section 1410.324  Transportation Improvement Program Content

    Existing Secs. 450.324(a) through (e) would have minor 
modifications to the text and be redesignated as Secs. 1410.324(a) 
through (e). Please note, however, that an addition to proposed 
Sec. 1410.324(b) would reflect the changes in proposed Sec. 1410.222(c) 
to limit STIP/TIP extensions to 180 days in attainment areas. The 
prohibition against STIP/TIP extensions in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas is present also in proposed Sec. 1410.324(b). 
Additionally, the current wording reflects TEA-21's confirmation of the 
previous regulatory provisions; most notably, the cooperative estimate 
of available funds. As indicated above, the estimation process would be 
achieved through locally identified processes.
    In existing Sec. 450.324 (proposed Sec. 1410.324), proposed 
paragraph (f)(1) would be unmodified. Paragraph (f)(2) would be 
modified to reflect changes in funding categories (e.g., minimum 
guarantee, etc.) and the elimination of the exemption for Motor Carrier 
State Assistance Program and 23 U.S.C. 402 safety program projects from 
being included in a TIP. The exemption for these two categories would 
be removed to reflect the ITS consistency requirement discussed above 
and the requirement that transportation projects funded with Federal-
aid funds must satisfy the requirements of 23 U.S.C. and, where 
appropriate, be found conforming for air quality purposes.
    In current Sec. 450.324(f)(3) (redesignated as 
Sec. 1410.324(f)(3)), ``approval'' would be changed to ``action'' to 
reflect a broader concept regarding the range of our activities taken 
with regard to projects, i.e., not all of them are labeled 
``approvals'' but, yet, they must still be based on plans and programs.
    Current Secs. 450.324(f)(4) and (f)(5) would be modified and 
redesignated as Secs. 1410.324(f)(5) and (f)(6), respectively. The 
changes are intended to clarify that all regionally significant 
projects in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas, whether 
funded federally or otherwise, would be included in the metropolitan 
TIP. This allows full consideration of all projects in a regional 
conformity determination and ensures that the provisions of the CAA are 
met.
    The three year conformity period for a TIP would start from the 
date of the conformity determination by the FHWA and the FTA. It is our 
expectation that the time period from the point of a Federal conformity 
determination on the TIP and its inclusion by the Governor's action in 
the STIP and the subsequent gubernatorial approval of the STIP and 
planning finding and STIP approval by the FHWA and the FTA would be 
monitored to ensure efficient and expeditious processing by all 
parties.
    With the exception of proposed minor changes for clarification 
regarding fiscal constraint, Sec. 450.324(g) (proposed 
Sec. 1410.324(g)) would be unchanged. The changes would reiterate the 
need for specification of funding sources for projects included in a 
TIP. The wording of existing Sec. 450.324(h) (proposed 
Sec. 1410.324(h)) would be unchanged. The content of Sec. 450.324(i) 
(proposed Sec. 1410.324(i)) would be modified to indicate that only 
regionally significant projects funded under Chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. 
need be specifically identified in a TIP. These projects are typically 
``Federal Lands'' projects, e.g., Indian Reservation Roads, National 
Park Service Road, etc. The existing Secs. 450.324(j) through (m) 
(proposed Sec. 1410.324(j) through (m)) would be generally unchanged 
except for statutory reference modifications.
    Existing Sec. 450.324(n) (proposed Sec. 1410.324(n)) would be 
modified to include an indication that projects are to be included on 
the TIP until fully authorized. A new Sec. 1410.324(n)(5) is proposed 
to require that the TIP shall serve as the basis for an annual listing 
of projects, supplemented as appropriate, to ensure adequate public 
information regarding projects funded with Federal monies. Both changes 
are geared at ensuring greater clarity as to what projects must be 
included on a TIP.
    The second change to proposed Sec. 1410.324(n) serves another 
purpose--encouraging greater public knowledge regarding which projects 
have been advanced. In this case, we are opting to allow the planning 
participants the flexibility to design a process to comply with the 
legislative directive provided in section 134(h)(7)(B) of title 23 
U.S.C. for an annual listing of projects. While the statute focuses on 
the MPO, we believe that the State DOT, transit operator, and the MPO 
operating jointly can produce the required information.
    The MPO, in cooperation with its planning partners would, under 
this proposal, utilize the TIP as the basis for the annual listing. 
Each year the participating agencies would identify the projects that 
advanced (or did not) and publish the ``list'' jointly, in a fashion 
consistent with the public involvement provisions for the metropolitan 
area. Changes to the TIP would be acknowledged and reflected in 
modifications to the annual listing as appropriate.
    Current Sec. 450.324(o) would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.324(o) 
with no other changes.
    In general, we believe that it may be possible to further 
streamline the information and procedural requirements expected of 
TIPs, particularly with regard to financial information. We would be 
interested in any possible information reduction options that may be 
possible while maintaining the principles and practices of sound public 
involvement and fiscal constraint.
    A new Sec. 1410.324(p) would be added to authorize utilization of 
an interim TIP during an anticipated conformity lapse. It is the intent 
of this section to permit funding of existing exempt, transportation 
control measures (TCMs) and other projects that can advance under a 
conformity lapse in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. New TCMs 
under this provision can only be approved or funded when they have been 
included in an approved SIP with identified emission reduction benefits 
(but not necessarily credited in the

[[Page 33939]]

applicable SIP). These TCMs would have to be included in the SIP before 
they can be advanced into completion of the NEPA process, design, right 
of way acquisition and/or construction). An interim plan may be used 
during a conformity lapse to advance projects that can proceed 
according to 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, including existing TCMs and 
existing and new exempt projects. It is the expectation of the US DOT 
that this provision would be utilized for new TCM projects where a 
conformity lapse would persist for six months or longer. An interim TIP 
may be used for periods of less than six months to advance existing TCM 
and existing and new exempt projects.

Section 1410.326  Transportation Improvement Program Modification

    Current Sec. 450.326 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.326. The 
only change to this section would be to clarify when a new conformity 
determination is necessary. The addition of non-exempt projects, or 
replacement of an existing TIP by a new TIP, requires a new conformity 
determination. Similarly, moving a project or a phase of a project from 
year four, five, or later of a TIP to the first three years would be an 
amendment and require a new conformity determination. We believe that 
frequent modification of TIPs through the addition of non-exempt 
projects is inconsistent with the principles of fiscal constraint and 
public involvement. Hence, we intend to make it clear that a new 
conformity determination is necessary unless the changes to TIPs are 
minor, i.e., addition or deletion of exempt projects.

Section 450.328  Transportation Improvement Program Relationship to 
Statewide TIP

    Current Sec. 450.328 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.328. The 
text would remain unchanged.

Section 1410.330  Transportation Improvement Program Action by FHWA/FTA

    Current Sec. 450.330  would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.330. The 
provisions of current Secs. 450.330(a) and (b) would be redesignated as 
Secs. 1410.330(a) and (b). There would be very minor wording changes 
for clarification or technical corrections. A new Sec. 1410.330(c) 
would be added to address the addition of ``illustrative projects'' to 
TIPs. This paragraph makes it clear that no Federal action may be taken 
on these projects until they become formally included in the TIP as 
indicated previously.
    Consistent with the overall purposes of the planning process and 
the need for Federal actions on planning processes and products as 
appropriate as described in this proposed regulation, project funding 
is contingent on the existence of a plan and TIP. If a plan and TIP are 
not updated as required herein, new funding actions cannot be taken.

Section 1410.332  Selecting Projects from a TIP

    Current Sec. 450.332 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.332. 
Current Secs. 450.332(a), (b) and (c) would be redesignated as 
Secs. 1410.332((b), (c) and (a), respectively, with only citation 
corrections to the text. Proposed Secs. 1410.332(d) and (e) (current 
Secs. 450.332(d) and (e), respectively) would include citation 
corrections and in paragraph (e) the word ``will'' would become 
``shall'' to reflect the force of law under the CAA. Consistent with 
previous program practice by the FHWA and the FTA, selecting a project 
for advancement from year two or three of a TIP does not require a TIP 
amendment.

Section 1410.334  Certifications

    Current Sec. 450.334 would be redesignated as Sec. 1410.334. 
Current Sec. 450.334(a) would have three new paragraphs (a)(6) through 
(a)(8) under this proposal. These paragraphs add references to 
compliance with additional Federal statutes but do not represent new 
compliance requirements. These requirements previously existed and the 
regulations would be revised to point out their existence.
    Paragraph (d) would be revised to clarify the basis for Federal 
certification actions in relation to Federal findings during the review 
process. The wording of current paragraph (e) would be the same as the 
sanctions specified in paragraph (f). Current paragraph (g) would be 
eliminated to reflect changes made by the TEA-21 (related to the 
failure to remain certified for two years after October 1994). A new 
proposed Sec. 1410.334(g) would focus on the new statutory requirement 
for public involvement during a certification review. We previously 
required this through administrative directive. Hence, there would be 
no change in practice, other than to further encourage broad public 
outreach as part of certification reviews.

Phase-in of New Requirements

    No phase-in period for any requirements under the TEA-21 is 
proposed. Current Sec. 450.336 would be removed. Comments on the 
desirability of such requirements and the specific areas for which they 
are warranted are welcome.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available 
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received 
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be 
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, we 
will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes 
available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons 
should continue to examine the docket for new material.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies

    We have determined that this rulemaking is a significant regulatory 
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under Department 
of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures because of 
substantial State, local government, congressional, and public 
interest. These interests involve receipt of Federal financial support 
for transportation investments, appropriate compliance with statutory 
requirements, and balancing of transportation mobility and 
environmental goals. This rulemaking is a revision to an existing 
regulation for which the costs of compliance have previously been 
addressed. The modifications proposed herein are intended to reduce 
current regulatory requirements (e.g., simplification of planning 
factors, elimination of separate MIS requirement, simplification of 
planning area boundary establishment, etc.) and to add some additional 
data analysis requirements (e.g., elaboration of environmental justice 
data analyses, preparation of an Intelligent Transportation Systems 
Integration Strategy, addition of operations and management 
responsibility, etc.). In preparing this proposal, the agencies have 
sought to maintain existing flexibility of operation wherever possible 
for States, MPOs, and other affected organizations and utilize already 
existing processes to accomplish any new tasks or activities. As a 
result, we believe that the economic impact of this rulemaking in 
comparison to the existing regulation should be the same or less.
    The marginal additional costs associated with these proposed rules 
are attributable to the streamlining

[[Page 33940]]

provisions of the TEA-21. Achieving the goals of these provisions more 
efficiently and effectively warrants the regulatory changes proposed 
herein. Furthermore, we provide substantial financial assistance to 
States and MPOs to support compliance with the regulatory requirements 
of this part. Funding for the planning process increased substantially 
under the TEA-21 and should, we believe, off-set much of the economic 
impact on entities complying with these requirements.
    This proposed rule would revise existing metropolitan planning 
regulations of the FHWA and the FTA and conform those regulations to 
requirements of the TEA-21. While they incorporate some new 
requirements, the bulk of them have been in place for many years and 
States and metropolitan planning organizations have been implementing 
them. In the past, we have provided funding to support planning 
activities and production of required transportation documents, e.g., 
transportation plans and improvement programs. During Fiscal Year 1999, 
the FHWA will provide in excess of $187 million for metropolitan 
planning and $492 million for State planning and research activities. 
The FTA provided $42 million for metropolitan planning. For both 
agencies, there is a statutory matching grant requirement which 
stipulates that recipients must match Federal funds at least on an 80 
percent Federal, 20 percent recipient basis. To meet the State planning 
funds matching requirement, States will expend approximately $98 
million. The MPOs will have to provide approximately $46 million of 
non-Federal funds to match the Federal metropolitan planning funds (the 
FHWA and the FTA funds combined). If the States and other recipient's 
choose not to accept Federal support for transportation they would not 
have to develop the plans and programs stipulated in this proposed 
rule. Hence, the Federal government provides a substantial economic 
incentive to encourage State and metropolitan planning. In addition, 
these rules support the EPA conformity regulation at 40 CFR parts 53 
and 91 which establishes requirements for MPOs to perform regional 
transportation and emissions modeling and to document the regional air 
quality impacts of transportation improvements contained in plans and 
programs.
    The impacts on the States and MPOs result mainly from modified data 
collection and analysis activities that may be necessary to implement 
the TEA-21 planning provisions. A single new provision in 
Sec. 1410.322(b)(11) focuses on the requirements for satisfying section 
5206(e) of the TEA-21 regarding demonstrating consistency of 
Intelligent Transportation Systems projects funded with highway trust 
fund dollars with the provisions of the National ITS Architecture. The 
economic impacts of this provision are addressed in the regulatory 
analysis being prepared for the specific rulemaking on ITS architecture 
consistency. We anticipate that the elements required in the planning 
process for ITS consistency would generally be undertaken anyway as a 
part of the plan development activities and do not require significant 
new processes or requirements of MPOs and States.
    In general, we believe that the rule changes proposed here have 
added limited regulatory requirements. The impact of complying with the 
changes can be minimized by States and MPOs by using the flexibility 
provided in the proposed rule to reduce data collection and analysis 
costs. While there may be additional costs to some States and MPOs, the 
TEA-21 significantly increased the mandatory set-aside in Federal funds 
that must be used for transportation planning, and in addition, gives 
the States and MPOs the flexibility to use Federal capital dollars for 
transportation planning if they so desire. We are interested in the 
costs to States and MPOs of complying with the proposed requirements, 
including the expenditure of State and MPO funds above the required 
matching amounts. Comments on this matter are welcome.
    The agencies welcome comment on the economic impacts of these 
proposed regulations. Comments, including those from the States and 
MPOs, regarding specific burdens, impacts, and costs would be most 
welcome and would aid us in more fully appreciating the impacts of this 
ongoing planning process requirement. Hence, we encourage comments on 
all facets of this proposal regarding its costs, burden, and impact.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-
354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of these rules on 
small entities, such as, local governments and businesses. The proposed 
metropolitan and statewide planning regulations modify existing 
planning requirements. These modifications are substantially dictated 
by the statutory provisions of the TEA-21. We believe that the 
flexibility available to States and MPOs in responding to requirements 
has been maintained, if not enhanced, in this proposal. Accordingly, 
the FHWA and the FTA certify that this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We are interested in any comments regarding the potential economic 
impacts of these proposed rules on small entities and governments. Of 
specific concern are the additional costs of the incremental changes in 
our regulatory requirements. The agencies believe that these costs have 
been off-set largely by reduced statutory requirements and the 
flexibility built into the regulations. The agencies are requesting 
comments on these issues.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    This proposed action has been reviewed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated 
August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that this action does not 
have a substantial direct effect or sufficient Federalism implications 
on States and local governments that would limit the policymaking 
discretion of the States. Nothing in this document directly preempts 
any State law or regulation. The TEA-21 and its predecessors authorize 
the Secretary to implement the provisions for metropolitan and 
statewide planning. We believe that policies in these proposed rules 
are consistent with the principles, criteria and requirements of the 
Federalism Executive Order and the TEA-21. Comments on these 
conclusions are welcomed and should be submitted to the docket.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 20.205, 
Highway planning and Construction (or 20.217); 20.500, Federal Transit 
Capital Improvement Grants; 20.505, Federal Transit Technical Studies 
Grants; 20.507, Federal Transit Capital and Operating Assistance 
Formula Grants. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 
regarding intergovernmental consultation in Federal programs and 
activities apply to these programs.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. We have determined 
that this proposal contains a requirement for minor additional data

[[Page 33941]]

collection to satisfy the provisions of the TEA-21 associated with ITS 
and environmental justice. The FHWA and the FTA believe that this 
burden increase has been off-set by decreases in requirements 
associated with the seven planning factors and related matters.
    The reporting requirements for metropolitan UPWPs, transportation 
plans and transportation improvement programs are currently approved 
under OMB control number 2132-0529. An extension request was filed with 
OMB on January 28, 2000, and a Notice of Request for Extension was 
published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2000 (65 FR 18421). The 
analysis supporting this approval was conducted by the FTA on behalf of 
both the FTA and the FHWA since the regulations are jointly issued by 
both agencies. The reporting requirements for statewide transportation 
plans and programs are also approved under this same OMB control 
number. The information collection requirements addressed under the 
current OMB approval number (2132-0529) impose a total burden of 
241,850 hours on the planning agencies that must comply with the 
requirements in the existing regulation. We initiated the preparation 
of materials to obtain a new three year approval from OMB in January 
2000. The request for a new data collection approval will be filed with 
OMB before publication of this NPRM. The FHWA and the FTA are 
soliciting comments on this NPRM regarding the extent to which any 
additional burden, beyond that associated with the current collection 
requirement, will be incurred by States and MPOs.
    The creation and submission of required reports and documents have 
been constrained to those specifically required by the TEA-21 or 
essential to the performance of our findings, certifications and/or 
approvals. The State plans are prepared on cycles individually 
determined by the States; the average is 10 such submissions per year. 
The State TIPs are prepared every two years. Approximately one third of 
all metropolitan areas prepare new plans every three years. The 
remaining metropolitan plans are updated every five years. We have 
assumed a distribution over several years for the plans. We have 
assumed that half of all TIPs are submitted annually. We assume an 
annual submission of unified planning work programs. By distributing 
the added burden for preparing these various submissions, the net 
result would be a minimal burden increase for each type of submission.
    Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any 
aspect of this information collection, including, but not limited to: 
(1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the 
proper performance of the functions of the FHWA and the FTA; (2) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to 
minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the 
collected information. Comments submitted in response to the NPRM will 
be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's clearance of 
this information collection.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed these proposed actions for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). It 
is our determination this action is consistent with the provisions of 
23 CFR 771.117(c)(20) which deems the issuance of regulations of this 
nature to meet the requirements for a Categorical Exclusion.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.)
    The requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 are supported by Federal 
funds administered by the FHWA and the FTA. There is a legislatively 
established local matching requirement for these funds of twenty 
percent of the total project cost. The FHWA and the FTA believe that 
the costs of complying with these requirements is predominantly covered 
by the funds they administer. However, as has been the case with 
previous regulatory issuances, we welcome comments from States, MPOs, 
transit agencies and other organizations regarding the extent to which 
the cost of compliance is covered by the funds provided.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive order 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of every year. The RINs contained in the heading 
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

    23 CFR Parts 450 and 1410
    Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Mass 
transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    49 CFR Part 613
    Grant programs--transportation, Mass transportation, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.
    49 CFR Part 621
    Grant programs--transportation, Mass transportation, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Chapter I

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 
23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 315, the FHWA proposes to amend Chapter I of 
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 450--[REMOVED]

    1. Remove part 450.

23 CFR Chapter IV

    2. For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Highway 
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration propose to 
establish a new chapter IV in title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, 
consisting of part 1410 as set forth below:

[[Page 33942]]

CHAPTER IV--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND FEDERAL TRANSIT 
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 1410--METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE PLANNING

Subpart A--Definitions
Sec.
1410.100   Purpose.
1410.102   Applicability.
1410.104   Definitions.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming
1410.200   Purpose.
1410.202   Applicability.
1410.204   Definitions.
1410.206   Statewide transportation planning process basic 
requirements.
1410.208   Consideration of statewide transportation planning 
factors.
1410.210   Coordination of planning process activities.
1410.212   Participation by interested parties.
1410.214   Content and development of statewide transportation plan.
1410.216   Content and development of statewide transportation 
improvement program.
1410.218   Relation of planning and project development processes.
1410.220   Funding of planning process.
1410.222   Approvals, self-certification and findings.
1410.224   Project selection.
1410.226   Applicability of NEPA to transportation planning and 
programming.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
1410.300   Purpose of planning process.
1410.302   Organizations and processes affected by planning 
requirements.
1410.304   Definitions.
1410.306   What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization and how is 
it created?
1410.308   Establishing the geographic boundaries for metropolitan 
transportation planning areas.
1410.310   Agreements among organizations involved in the planning 
process.
1410.312   Planning process organizational relationships.
1410.314   Planning tasks and unified work program.
1410.316   Transportation planning process and plan development.
1410.318   Relation of planning and project development processes.
1410.320   Congestion management system and planning process.
1410.322   Transportation plan content.
1410.324   Transportation improvement program content.
1410.326   Transportation improvement program modification.
1410.328   Metropolitan transportation improvement program 
relationship to statewide TIP.
1410.330   Transportation improvement program action by FHWA/FTA.
1410.332   Selecting projects from a TIP.
1410.334   Federal certifications.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 315; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 
U.S.C. 5303-5305; 49 CFR 1.48 and 1.51.

Subpart A Definitions


Sec. 1410.100  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to provide definitions for terms 
used in this part which go beyond those terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 
101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302.


Sec. 1410.102  Applicability.

    The definitions in this subpart are applicable to this part, except 
as otherwise provided.


Sec. 1410.104  Definitions.

    Except as defined in this subpart, terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 
101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302 are used in this part as so defined.
    Conformity lapse means that the conformity determination for a 
transportation plan or TIP has expired, and thus there is no currently 
conforming transportation plan and TIP.
    Conformity rule means the EPA Transportation Conformity Rule, as 
amended, 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
    Congestion management system means a systematic process for 
managing congestion that provides information on transportation system 
performance and on alternative strategies for alleviating congestion 
and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet 
State and local needs.
    Consultation means that one party confers with another party, in 
accordance with an established process, about an anticipated action and 
then keeps that party informed about actions taken.
    Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the 
planning and/or project development processes work together to achieve 
a common goal or objective.
    Coordination means the comparison of the transportation plans, 
programs, and schedules of one agency with related plans, programs and 
schedules of other agencies and adjustment of plans, programs and 
schedules to achieve general consistency.
    Design concept means the type of facility identified by the 
project, e.g., freeway, expressway, arterial highway, grade-separated 
highway, reserved right-of-way rail transit, mixed-traffic rail 
transit, exclusive busway, etc.
    Design scope means the design aspects which will affect the 
proposed facility's impact on regional emissions, usually as they 
relate to vehicle or person carrying capacity and control, e.g., number 
of lanes or tracks to be constructed or added, length of project, 
signalization, access control including approximate number and location 
of interchanges, preferential treatment for high-occupancy vehicles, 
etc.
    Federally funded non-emergency transportation services means 
transportation services provided to the general public, including those 
with special transport needs, by public transit, private non-profit 
service providers, and private third-party contractors to public 
agencies.
    Financial estimate means a projection of Federal and State 
resources that will serve as a basis for developing plans and /or TIPs.
    Freight shipper means an entity that utilizes a freight carrier in 
the movement of its goods.
    Governor means the Governor of any one of the fifty States, or 
Puerto Rico, and includes the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
    Illustrative project means a transportation improvement that would 
be included in a financially constrained transportation plan and 
program if reasonable additional financial resources were available to 
support it.
    Indian Tribal Government means a duly formed governing body of an 
Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or 
community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as 
an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List 
Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.
    Interim plan means a plan composed of projects eligible to proceed 
under a conformity lapse (as defined in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and 
otherwise meeting all other provisions of this part including adoption 
by the MPOs.
    Interim transportation improvement program means a TIP composed of 
projects eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse (as defined in 40 
CFR parts 51 and 93 ) and otherwise meeting all other provisions of 
this part including approval by the Governor.
    ITS integration strategy means a systematic approach for 
coordinating and implementing intelligent transportation system 
investments funded with Federal highway trust funds to achieve an 
integrated regional system.
    Maintenance area means any geographic region of the United States 
previously designated nonattainment pursuant to the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (CAA) and subsequently redesignated to attainment 
subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance plan under section 
175A of the CAA, as amended.

[[Page 33943]]

    Management and operation means actions and strategies aimed at 
improving the person, vehicle and/or freight carrying capacity, safety, 
efficiency and effectiveness of the existing and future transportation 
system to enhance mobility and accessibility in the area served.
    Metropolitan planning area means the geographic area in which the 
metropolitan transportation planning process required by 23 U.S.C. 134 
and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306 must be carried out.
    Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) means the forum for 
cooperative transportation decision making for the metropolitan 
planning area pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
    Metropolitan transportation plan means the official intermodal 
transportation plan that is developed and adopted through the 
metropolitan transportation planning process for the metropolitan 
planning area, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 
5303.
    Nonattainment area means any geographic region of the United States 
which has been designated as nonattainment under section 107 of the CAA 
for any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard 
exists.
    Non-metropolitan local official means elected or appointed 
officials of general purpose local government, outside metropolitan 
planning areas, with jurisdiction/responsibility for transportation or 
other community development actions that impact transportation and 
elected officials for special transportation and planning agencies, 
such as economic development districts and land use planning agencies.
    Provider of freight transportation services means a shipper or 
carrier which transports or otherwise facilitates the movement of goods 
from one point to another.
    Purpose and need means the intended outcome and sustaining 
rationale for a proposed transportation improvement, including, but not 
limited, to mobility deficiencies for identified populations and 
geographic areas.
    Regionally significant project means a transportation project 
(other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves 
regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area 
outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major 
planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., 
or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and 
would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's 
transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial 
highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an 
alternative to regional highway travel.
    State means any one of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, 
or Puerto Rico.
    State implementation plan (SIP) means:
    (1) The implementation plan which contains specific strategies for 
controlling emissions of and reducing ambient levels of pollutants in 
order to satisfy Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for demonstrations of 
reasonable further progress and attainment (CAA secs. 182(b)(1), 
182(c)(2)(A), 182(c)(2)(B), 187(a)(7), 189(a)(1)(B), and 189(b)(1)(A); 
and secs.192(a) and 192(b), for nitrogen dioxide of the CAA); or
    (2) The implementation plan under section 175A of the CAA as 
amended.
    Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) means a staged, 
multi-year, statewide, intermodal program of transportation projects 
which is consistent with the statewide transportation plan and planning 
processes and metropolitan plans, TIPs and processes pursuant to 23 
U.S.C. 135.
    Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) extension means 
the lengthening of the scheduled duration of an existing STIP, 
including the component metropolitan TIPs included in the STIP, beyond 
two years by joint administrative action of the FHWA and the FTA. STIP 
extensions are not allowed for metropolitan TIP portions of the STIP 
which are in nonattainment or maintenance areas as well as for those 
portions of the STIP containing projects in rural nonattainment or 
maintenance areas.
    Statewide transportation plan means the official statewide, 
intermodal transportation plan that is developed through the statewide 
transportation planning process pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135.
    TIP update means the periodic re-examination and revision of TIP 
contents, including, but not limited to, non-exempt projects, on a 
scheduled basis, normally at least every two years. The addition or 
deletion of a non-exempt project or phase of a non-exempt project to a 
TIP shall be based on a comprehensive update of the TIP.
    Transportation control measure means any measure that is 
specifically identified and committed to in the applicable 
implementation plan that is either one of the types listed in section 
108 of the CAA, or any other measure for the purpose of reducing 
emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation 
sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion 
conditions. Notwithstanding the above, vehicle technology-based, fuel-
based, and maintenance-based measures which control the emissions from 
vehicles under fixed traffic conditions are not TCMs.
    Transportation improvement program (TIP) means a staged, multi-
year, intermodal program of transportation projects in the metropolitan 
planning area which is consistent with the metropolitan transportation 
plan.
    Transportation Management Area (TMA) means an urbanized area with a 
population over 200,000 (as determined by the latest decennial census) 
or other area when TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the 
MPO (or affected local officials), and officially designated by the 
Administrators of the FHWA and the FTA. The TMA designation applies to 
the entire metropolitan planning area(s).
    Transportation plan update means the periodic review, revision or 
reaffirmation of plan content, normally every three years in 
nonattainment and maintenance areas and five years in attainment areas 
or the update period for State plans as determined by the State.
    Twenty year planning horizon means a forecast period covering 
twenty years from the date of plan adoption, reaffirmation or 
modification in attainment areas and subsequent Federal conformity 
finding at the time of adoption in nonattainment and maintenance areas. 
The plan must reflect the most recent planning assumptions for current 
and future population, travel, land use, congestion, employment, 
economic activity and other related statistical measures for the 
metropolitan planning area.
    Urbanized area (UZA) means a geographic area with a population of 
at least 50,000 as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Bureau of the Census based on the latest decennial census or special 
census as appropriate.
    User of public transit means any person or group representing such 
persons who use mass transportation open to the public other than taxis 
and other privately operated vehicles.

Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming


Sec. 1410.200  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to implement 23 U.S.C. 135, which 
requires each State to carry out a transportation planning process that 
shall be continuing, cooperative, and

[[Page 33944]]

comprehensive to the degree appropriate, based on the complexity of the 
transportation problems to be addressed. The transportation planning 
process shall be intermodal and shall develop a statewide 
transportation plan and transportation improvement program for all 
areas of the State, including those areas subject to the requirements 
of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5305. The plan and program shall 
facilitate the development and integrated management and operation of 
safe transportation systems and facilities (including pedestrian 
walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as 
an intermodal transportation system for the State and an integral part 
of an intermodal transportation system for the United States. The 
intermodal transportation system shall provide for safe, efficient, 
economic movement of people and goods in all areas of the State and 
foster economic growth and development while minimizing transportation-
related fuel consumption and air pollution.


Sec. 1410.202  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to States and any 
other agencies/organizations, such as MPOs, transit operators and air 
quality agencies, that are responsible for satisfying these 
requirements for transportation planning, programming and project 
development throughout the State pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135.


Sec. 1410.204  Definitions.

    Except as otherwise provided in subpart A of this part, terms 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) are used in this part as so defined.


Sec. 1410.206  Statewide transportation planning process basic 
requirements.

    (a) The statewide transportation planning process shall include, as 
a minimum, the following:
    (1) Data collection and analysis;
    (2) Consideration of factors contained in Sec. 1410.208;
    (3) Coordination of activities as noted in Sec. 1410.210;
    (4) Development of a statewide transportation plan for all areas of 
the State that considers a range of transportation options designed to 
meet the transportation needs (e.g., passenger, freight, safety, etc.) 
of the State including all modes and their connections;
    (5) Development of a statewide transportation improvement program 
(STIP) for all areas of the State; and
    (6) Various processes to accomplish data collection and analyses 
essential for an effective transportation planning process, including a 
process to assure that, no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, 
sex, national origin, age, or physical handicap, be excluded from 
participation in, be denied benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to 
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 
assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation. These assurances 
shall be demonstrated through the following:
    (i) An assessment covering the State, including at a minimum the 
following:
    (A) A geographic and demographic profile of the State that 
identifies the low-income and minority, and where appropriate, elderly 
and persons with disabilities, components of this profile;
    (B) The transportation services available to or planned for these 
segments of the State population;
    (C) Any disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects, 
including interrelated social and economic effects, consistent with the 
provisions of Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 3 CFR, 1995 comp., p. 
859) as implemented through US DOT Order 5610.2 and FHWA Order 6640.23; 
\1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOT order 5610.2 and FHWA order 6640.23 are available for 
inspection and copying from DOT headquarters and field offices as 
prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (D) Any denial of or a reduction in benefits;
    (ii) Consideration of comments received during public involvement 
efforts (consistent with the provisions of Sec. 1410.212(b)) to ensure 
that expressed concerns of the elderly, minority individuals and 
persons with disabilities, have been addressed during plan and program 
decision making;
    (iii) Identification of prior and planned efforts to address any 
disproportionately high and adverse effects that are found;
    (iv) The results of paragraphs (a)(5)(i), (ii) and (iii) of this 
section will be documented in a manner to permit public review during 
appropriate project development activities;
    (v) The State may rely on information provided by a metropolitan 
planning organization for those segments of the population in 
metropolitan planning areas of the State; and
    (vi) In accordance with Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2, 
and FHWA Order 6640.23, nothing in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (vi) of 
this section are intended to nor shall they create any right to 
judicial review of any action taken by the agency, its officers or its 
recipients taken under this part to comply with such Orders.
    (b) [Reserved].


Sec. 1410.208  Consideration of statewide transportation planning 
factors.

    (a) Each statewide transportation planning process shall provide 
for consideration of projects and strategies that will:
    (1) Support the economic vitality of the United States, the States, 
and metropolitan areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness, 
productivity and efficiency;
    (2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system 
for motorized and nonmotorized users;
    (3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to 
people and for freight;
    (4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy 
conservation, and improve quality of life;
    (5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation 
system, across and between modes throughout the State, for people and 
freight;
    (6) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
    (7) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation 
system.
    (b) In addition, in carrying out statewide transportation planning, 
the State shall consider, at a minimum, the following and other factors 
and issues that the planning process participants might identify which 
are important considerations within the statewide transportation 
planning process:
    (1) With respect to nonmetropolitan areas, the concerns of local 
elected officials representing units of general purpose local 
government; and
    (2) The concerns of Indian Tribal Governments and Federal land 
management agencies that have jurisdiction over land within the 
boundaries of the State.


Sec. 1410.210  Coordination of planning process activities.

    (a) The statewide transportation planning process shall be carried 
out in coordination with adjacent States, adjacent countries as 
appropriate at the international borders, and with the metropolitan 
planning process required by subpart C of this part.
    (b) The statewide transportation planning process shall be 
coordinated with air quality planning and provide for appropriate 
conformity analyses to the extent required by the Clean Air Act (40 
U.S.C. 175 and 176). The State shall carry out its responsibilities for 
the development of the transportation portion of the State 
Implementation Plan to the extent required by the Clean Air Act (42 
U.S.C. 7504), as appropriate within the statewide transportation 
planning process.

[[Page 33945]]

    (c) Development of transportation plans, programs and planning 
activities shall be coordinated with related planning activities being 
carried out outside of metropolitan planning areas.
    (d) The statewide transportation planning process shall provide a 
forum for coordinating data collection and analyses to support, 
planning, programming and project development decisions.
    (e) The degree of coordination shall be based on the scale and 
complexity of many issues including transportation problems, safety 
concerns, land use, employment, economic, environmental, and housing 
and community development objectives, and other circumstances statewide 
or in subareas within the State.


Sec. 1410.212  Participation by interested parties.

    (a) Non-metropolitan local official participation.
    (1) The State shall have a documented process for consultation with 
local officials in non-metropolitan areas within the continuing, 
cooperative and comprehensive planning process for development of the 
statewide transportation plan and the statewide transportation 
improvement program. The process shall be documented and cooperatively 
developed by both the State and nonmetropolitan local officials.
    (2) The process for participation of nonmetropolitan local 
officials shall not be reviewed or approved by the FHWA and the FTA. 
However, local official participation will be among the issues 
considered by the FHWA and the FTA in making the transportation 
planning finding called for in Sec. 1410.222(b).
    (b) Public involvement.
    (1) Public involvement processes shall be open and proactive by 
providing complete information, timely public notice, full public 
access to key decisions, and opportunities for early and continuing 
involvement.
    (2) To satisfy these objectives public involvement processes shall 
provide for:
    (i) Early and continuing public involvement opportunities 
throughout the transportation planning and programming process; and
    (ii) Timely information about transportation issues and processes 
to citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of 
transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, 
freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, 
representatives of users of public transit, and other interested 
parties and segments of the community affected by transportation plans, 
programs, and projects;
    (iii) Reasonable public access to technical and policy information 
used in the development of the plan and STIP;
    (iv) Adequate public notice of public involvement activities and 
time for public review and comment at key decision points, including, 
but not limited, to action on the plan and STIP;
    (v) A process for demonstrating explicit consideration and response 
to public input during the planning and program development process, 
including responses to input received from persons with disabilities 
and minority, elderly, and low-income populations;
    (vi) A process for seeking out and considering the needs of those 
traditionally under served by existing transportation systems, 
including, but not limited to, low-income and minority populations 
which may face challenges accessing employment and other amenities;
    (vii) Periodic review of the effectiveness of the public 
involvement process to ensure that the process provides full and open 
access to all and revision of the process as necessary, with specific 
attention to the effectiveness of efforts to engage persons with 
disabilities, minority individuals, the elderly and low-income 
populations.
    (3) Public involvement activities carried out in a metropolitan 
area in response to metropolitan planning requirements in 
Sec. 1410.322(c) or Sec. 1410.324(c) may by agreement of the State and 
the MPO satisfy the requirements of this section.
    (4) During initial development and major revisions of the statewide 
transportation plan required under Sec. 1410.214, the State shall 
provide citizens, affected public agencies and jurisdictions, 
representatives of transportation agency employees, private and public 
providers of transportation, representatives of users of public 
transit, freight shippers providers of freight transportation services 
and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 
proposed plan. The proposed plan shall be published, with reasonable 
notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily available 
for public review and comment. Likewise, the official statewide 
transportation plan (see Sec. 1410.214(d)) shall be published, with 
reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily 
available for public information.
    (5) During development and major revision of the statewide 
transportation improvement program required under Sec. 1410.216, the 
Governor shall provide citizens, affected public agencies and 
jurisdictions, representatives of transportation agency employees, 
private and public providers of transportation, representatives of 
users of public transit, freight shippers, providers of freight 
transportation services and other interested parties, a reasonable 
opportunity for review and comment on the proposed program. The 
proposed program shall be published, with reasonable notification of 
its availability, or otherwise made readily available for public review 
and comment. The approved program (see Sec. 1410.222(b)) if it differs 
significantly from the proposed program, shall be published, with 
reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily 
available for public information.
    (6) The time provided for public review and comment for minor 
revisions to the statewide transportation plan or statewide 
transportation improvement program shall be determined by the State and 
local officials based on the complexity of the revisions.
    (7) The State shall, as appropriate, provide for public comment on 
existing and proposed procedures for public involvement throughout the 
statewide transportation planning and programming process. As a 
minimum, the State shall publish procedures and allow 45 days for 
public review and written comment before the procedures and any major 
revisions to existing procedures are adopted.
    (c) Federal agency and other government participation. The 
transportation planning process shall allow for participation of other 
governments and agencies, particularly Indian Tribal Governments and 
Federal lands managing agencies. The process for consulting with Indian 
Tribal Governments and Federal lands managing agencies shall be 
cooperatively developed and documented by both the State and the Indian 
Tribal Government(s) or the respective Federal lands managing agency.
    (d) State air quality agency and other state agency participation. 
The transportation planning process shall allow for participation of 
the State air quality agency and other state agencies as determined 
appropriate by the planning process participants.
    (e) Participation and the planning finding. The processes for 
participation of interested parties will be considered by the FHWA and 
the FTA as they make the planning finding required in Sec. 1410.222(b) 
to assure that full and

[[Page 33946]]

open access is provided to the decision making process.


Sec. 1410.214  Content and development of statewide transportation 
plan.

    (a) The State shall develop a statewide transportation plan that 
shall:
    (1) Cover all areas of the State;
    (2) Be intermodal (including consideration and provision, as 
applicable, of elements and connections of and between transit, non-
motorized, rail, commercial motor vehicle, waterway, and aviation 
facilities, particularly with respect to intercity travel) and 
statewide in scope in order to facilitate the safe and efficient 
movement of people and goods;
    (3) Address the development of intelligent transportation systems 
(ITS) investment strategies, including an ITS Integration Strategy 
consistent with the provisions of Sec. 1410.322(b)(11), to support the 
development of integrated technology based investments, including 
metropolitan and non-metropolitan investments. The scope of the 
integration strategy shall be appropriate to the scale of investment 
anticipated for ITS during the life of the plan and shall address the 
level of resources and staging of planned investments. ITS Integration 
Strategy shall be developed and documented no later than the first 
update of the transportation plan or STIP that occurs two years 
following the effective date of the final rule;
    (4) Be reasonably consistent in time horizon among its elements, 
but cover a forecast period of at least 20 years;
    (5) Provide for development and integrated management and operation 
of bicycle and pedestrian transportation system and facilities which 
are appropriately interconnected with other modes;
    (6) Be coordinated with the metropolitan transportation plans 
required under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303;
    (7) Reference, summarize or contain any applicable short range 
planning studies, strategic planning and/or policy studies, 
transportation needs studies, management system reports and any 
statements of policies, goals and objectives regarding issues, such as, 
transportation, economic development, housing, social and environmental 
effects, energy, etc., that were significant to development of the 
plan;
    (8) Reference, summarize or contain information on the availability 
of financial (including as appropriate an optional financial plan 
consistent with 23 CFR 1410.214(d)) and other resources needed to carry 
out the plan; and
    (9) Contain strategies that ensure timely compliance with the 
applicable SIP.
    (b) The following entities shall be involved in the development of 
the statewide transportation plan:
    (1) MPOs shall be involved on a cooperation basis for the portions 
of the plan affecting metropolitan planning areas;
    (2) Indian Tribal Governments and the Secretary of the Interior 
shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan 
affecting areas of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal 
Government;
    (3) Federal lands managing agencies shall be involved on a 
consultation basis for the portions of the program affecting areas of 
the State under their jurisdiction;
    (4) Affected local officials with responsibility for transportation 
shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan 
in nonmetropolitan areas of the State.
    (c) In developing the statewide transportation plan, the State 
shall:
    (1) Provide for participation by interested parties as required 
under Sec. 1410.212;
    (2) Provide for consideration and analysis as appropriate of 
specified factors as required under Sec. 1410.208;
    (3) Provide for coordination as required under Sec. 1410.210; and
    (4) Identify transportation strategies necessary to efficiently 
serve the mobility needs of people.
    (d) The statewide transportation plan may include a financial plan 
that:
    (1) Demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be 
implemented;
    (2) Indicates resources from public and private sources that are 
reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan;
    (3) Recommends any additional financing strategies for needed 
projects and programs;
    (4) Might include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects 
that would be included in the adopted transportation plan if reasonable 
additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were 
available. The State is not required to select any project from the 
illustrative list for implementation, and projects on the illustrative 
list cannot be advanced to implementation without an action by the 
Secretary of Transportation on the STIP.
    (e) The State shall provide and carry out a mechanism to adopt the 
plan as the official statewide transportation plan.
    (f) The plan shall be continually evaluated and periodically 
updated, as appropriate, using the procedures in this section for 
development and establishment of the plan.


Sec. 1410.216  Content and development of statewide transportation 
improvement program (STIP).

    (a) Each State shall develop a statewide transportation improvement 
program for all areas of the State. In case of difficulties in 
developing the STIP portion for a particular area, e.g., metropolitan 
area, Indian Tribal lands, etc., a partial STIP covering the rest of 
the State may be developed. The portion of the STIP in a metropolitan 
planning area (the metropolitan TIP developed pursuant to subpart C of 
this part) shall be developed in cooperation with the MPO. To assist 
metropolitan TIP development the State, the MPO and the transit 
operator will cooperatively develop timely estimates of available 
Federal and State funds which are to be utilized in developing the 
metropolitan TIP. Metropolitan planning area TIPs shall be included 
without modification in the STIP, directly or by reference, once 
approved by the MPO and the Governor and after needed conformity 
findings are made. Metropolitan TIPs in nonattainment and maintenance 
areas are subject to the FHWA and the FTA conformity findings before 
their inclusion in the STIP. In nonattainment and maintenance areas 
outside metropolitan planning areas, Federal findings of conformity 
must be made prior to placing projects in the STIP. The State shall 
notify the appropriate MPO, local jurisdictions, Federal land 
management agency, Indian Tribal Government, etc., when a TIP including 
projects under the jurisdiction of the agency has been included in the 
STIP. All title 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 fund recipients will 
share information as projects in the STIP are implemented. The Governor 
shall provide for participation of interested parties in development of 
the STIP as required by Sec. 1410.212.
    (b) The following entities shall be involved in the development of 
the statewide transportation improvement program:
    (1) MPOs shall be involved on a cooperation basis for the portions 
of the program affecting metropolitan planning areas;
    (2) Indian Tribal Governments and the Secretary of the Interior 
shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the 
program affecting areas of the State under the jurisdiction of an 
Indian Tribal Government;
    (3) Federal lands managing agencies shall be involved on a 
consultation basis for the portions of the program affecting

[[Page 33947]]

areas of the State under their jurisdiction; and
    (4) Affected local officials with responsibility for transportation 
shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the 
program in nonmetropolitan areas of the State.
    (c) The STIP shall:
    (1) Include a list of priority transportation projects proposed to 
be carried out in the first three years of the STIP. Since each TIP is 
approved by the Governor, the TIP priorities will dictate STIP 
priorities for each individual metropolitan area. As a minimum, the 
lists shall group the projects that are to be undertaken in each of the 
years, e.g., year 1, year 2, year 3;
    (2) Cover a period of not less than three years, but may at State 
discretion cover a longer period. If the STIP covers more than three 
years, the projects in the additional years will be considered by the 
FHWA and the FTA only as informational;
    (3) Contain only projects consistent with the statewide plan 
developed under Sec. 1410.214;
    (4) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, contain only 
transportation projects that have been found to conform, or which come 
from programs that conform, in accordance with the requirements 
contained in the EPA conformity regulation 40 CFR parts 51 and 93;
    (5) Contain a project, or an identified phase of a project, only if 
full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the 
project within the time period contemplated for completion of the 
project. The STIP financial constraint will be demonstrated and 
maintained by year and the STIP shall include sufficient financial 
information to demonstrate which projects are to be implemented using 
current revenues and which projects are to be implemented using 
proposed revenue sources while the system as a whole is being 
adequately operated and maintained. In nonattainment and maintenance 
areas, projects included in the first two years of the current STIP/TIP 
shall be limited to those for which funds are available or committed. 
In the case of proposed funding sources, strategies for ensuring their 
availability shall be identified, preferably in an optional financial 
plan consistent with Sec. 1410.216(f);
    (6) Contain all capital and non-capital transportation projects 
(including transportation enhancements, safety, Federal lands highways 
projects, trails projects, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle 
transportation facilities), or identified phases of transportation 
projects, proposed for funding under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and/or title 
23, U.S.C., excluding:
    (i) Metropolitan planning projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(f) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5303;
    (ii) State planning and research projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 
307(c)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5313(b)(except those funded with national 
highway system (NHS), surface transportation program (STP) and minimum 
guarantee funds that the State and MPO for a metropolitan area agree 
should be in the TIP and consequently must be in the STIP); and
    (iii) Emergency relief projects (except those involving substantial 
functional, locational or capacity changes);
    (7) Contain all regionally significant transportation projects 
requiring an action by the FHWA or the FTA whether or not the projects 
are to be funded with title 23, U.S.C., or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funds, 
and/or selected funds administered by the Federal Railroad 
Administration, e.g., addition of an interchange to the Interstate 
System with State, local and/or private funds, high priority or 
demonstration projects not funded under title 23, U.S.C., or 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53. (The STIP should include all regionally significant 
transportation projects proposed to be funded with Federal funds other 
than those administered by the FHWA or the FTA. It should also include, 
for information purposes, if appropriate and cited in any TIPs, all 
regionally significant projects, to be funded with non-Federal funds);
    (8) Identify ITS projects funded with highway trust fund monies, 
including as appropriate an integration strategy, consistent with the 
statewide plan. Where ITS projects are identified that fit the 
provisions of Sec. 1410.322(b)(11), an agreement shall exist between 
participating agencies in the project area that will govern their 
implementation.
    (9) Include for each project or phase the following:
    (i) Sufficient descriptive material (i.e., type of work, termini, 
length, etc.) to identify the project or phase;
    (ii) Estimated total project cost, which may extend beyond the 
three years of the STIP;
    (iii) The amount of funds proposed to be obligated during each 
program year for the project or phase;
    (iv) For the first year, the proposed category of Federal funds and 
source(s) of non-Federal funds for the project or phase;
    (v) For the second and third years, the likely category of Federal 
funds and sources of non-Federal funds for the project or phase;
    (vi) Identification of the agencies responsible for carrying out 
the project or phase; and
    (10) For non-metropolitan areas, include in the first year only 
those projects which have been selected in accordance with the 
requirements in Sec. 1410.224(c).
    (d) Projects that are not considered to be of appropriate scale for 
individual identification in a given program year may be grouped by 
function, work type, and/or geographic area using the applicable 
classifications under 23 CFR 1420.311(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part 93. 
In addition, projects funded under chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. may be 
grouped by funding category and shown as one line item, unless they are 
determined to be regionally significant.
    (e) Projects in any of the first three years of the STIP may be 
moved to any other of the first three years of the STIP subject to the 
requirements of Sec. 1410.224.
    (f) The statewide transportation improvement program may include a 
financial plan that:
    (1) Demonstrates how the adopted transportation improvement program 
can be implemented;
    (2) Indicates resources from public and private sources that are 
reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the program;
    (3) Recommends any additional financing strategies for needed 
projects and programs;
    (4) Might include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects 
that would be included in the transportation improvement program if 
reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the 
financial plan were available. The State is not required to select any 
project from the illustrative list for implementation, and projects on 
the illustrative list cannot be advanced to implementation without an 
action by the Secretary on the STIP.
    (g) The STIP may be modified at any time under procedures agreed to 
by the cooperating parties consistent with the procedures established 
in this section (for STIP development), in Sec. 1410.212 (for 
interested party participation) and in Sec. 1410.222 (for the FHWA and 
the FTA approval).


Sec. 1410.218  Relation of planning and project development processes.

    (a) Depending upon its character and the level of detail desired as 
determined by the planning process participants, the statewide planning 
process products and analyses can be utilized as input to subsequent 
project development. The process described in Sec. 1410.318 relating 
planning and project development may

[[Page 33948]]

be utilized at the discretion of the statewide transportation planning 
process participants in non-metropolitan areas. Analyses performed 
within the statewide planning process to support project development 
lead to a statement of purpose and need for regionally significant 
proposed transportation investments.
    (b) The results of analyses conducted under paragraph (a) of this 
section, at the option of the planning participants, may:
    (1) Be documented as part of the plan development record for 
consideration in subsequent project development actions;
    (2) Serve as input to the NEPA process required under 23 CFR 1420;
    (3) Provide a basis, in part, for project level decision making; 
and
    (4) Be proposed for consideration as support for actions and 
decisions by federal agencies other than US DOT;
    (c) To the extent feasible, Federal, State, and local agencies with 
subsequent project level responsibilities for investments included in a 
transportation plan, shall be involved in planning analyses and studies 
as a means to reduce subsequent project development analyses and 
studies, support decisionmaking, and provide early identification of 
key concerns for later consideration and analysis as needed. Where the 
processes available under Sec. 1410.318(f) are invoked, the FHWA and 
the FTA shall be consulted.
    (d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as requiring 
formal NEPA review of or action on plans and TIPs.
    (e) The FHWA and the FTA project level actions, including, but not 
limited to issuance of a categorical exclusion, finding of no 
significant impact or a final environmental impact statement under 23 
CFR 1420, right of way acquisition (with the exception of hardship and 
protective buying actions), interstate interchange approvals, high 
occupancy vehicle (HOV) conversions, funding of ITS projects, project 
conformity analyses and approval of final design and construction and 
transit vehicle acquisition may not be completed unless the proposed 
project action is included in a STIP which meets the requirements of 
this subpart. None of these project level actions can occur in 
nonattainment and maintenance areas unless the project conforms 
according to the requirements of the EPA's conformity rule (40 CFR 
parts 51 and 93).


Sec. 1410.220  Funding of planning process.

    Funds provided under 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5307, 5309, 5311, and 5313(b) 
and 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), 104(f), 105, and 505(a) may be used 
to accomplish activities in this subpart.


Sec. 1410.222  Approvals, self-certification and findings.

    (a) At least every two years, each State shall submit the entire 
proposed STIP, and amendments as necessary, concurrently to the FHWA 
and the FTA for joint approval. The State shall certify that the 
transportation planning process is being carried out in accordance with 
all applicable requirements of:
    (1) 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, 49 U.S.C. 5303-5305 and 5323(k), and 
this part;
    (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
2000d-1) and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 21 and 23 CFR part 
230);
    (3) Section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 
U.S.C. 324);
    (4) The Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); 
and
    (5) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) 
and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 35);
    (6) Section 1101 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (Public Law 105-178) regarding the involvement of disadvantaged 
business enterprises in the FHWA and the FTA funded projects (sec. 
105(f), Public Law 97-424, 96 Stat. 2100; 49 CFR part 23);
    (7) The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
(42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and U.S. DOT regulations ``Transportation for 
Individuals with Disabilities'' (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38);
    (8) The provisions of 49 CFR part 20 regarding restrictions on 
influencing certain Federal activities;
    (9) In States containing nonattainment and maintenance areas, 
sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 
U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d)); and
    (10) all other applicable provisions of Federal law.
    (b) The FHWA and the FTA Administrators, in consultation with, 
where applicable, Federal land managing agencies, will review the STIP 
or amendment and jointly make a finding (based on self-certifications 
made by the State and appropriate reviews established and conducted by 
FTA and FHWA) as to the extent the projects in the STIP are based on a 
planning process that meets or substantially meets the requirements of 
title 23, U.S.C., 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and subparts A, B, and C of this 
part.
    (1) If, upon review, the FHWA and the FTA Administrators jointly 
find that the planning process through which the STIP was developed 
meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and these regulations 
(including subpart C where a metropolitan TIP is involved), they will 
unconditionally approve the STIP.
    (2) If the FHWA and the FTA administrators jointly find that the 
planning process through which the STIP was developed substantially 
meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and these regulations 
(including subpart C where a metropolitan TIP is involved), they will 
act on the STIP or amendment as follows:
    (i) Joint conditional approval of the STIP subject to certain 
corrective actions being taken;
    (ii) Joint conditional approval of the STIP as the basis for 
approval of identified categories of projects; and/or
    (iii) Under special circumstances, joint conditional approval of a 
partial STIP covering only a portion of the State.
    (3) If, upon review, the FHWA and the FTA Administrators jointly 
find that the STIP or amendment does not substantially meet the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and this part for any identified 
categories of projects, they will not approve the STIP or amendment.
    (c) The joint approval period for a new STIP or amended STIP shall 
not exceed two years. Where the State demonstrates, in writing, that 
extenuating circumstances will delay the submittal of a new STIP or 
amended STIP for approval, the FHWA and the FTA will consider and take 
appropriate action on requests to extend the approval beyond two years 
for all or part of the STIP for a limited period of time, not to exceed 
180 days. Where the request involves projects in a metropolitan 
planning area(s), the affected MPO(s) must concur in the request and if 
the delay was due to the development and approval of the TIP, the 
affected MPO(s) must provide supporting information, in writing, for 
the request. If nonattainment and/or maintenance areas are involved, a 
request for an extension cannot be granted.
    (d) The FHWA and the FTA will notify the State of actions taken 
under this section.
    (e) Where necessary in order to maintain or establish operations, 
the Federal Transit Administrator and/or the Federal Highway 
Administrator may approve operating assistance for specific projects or 
programs funded under 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 5311 even though the projects 
or programs may not be included in an approved STIP.


Sec. 1410.224  Project selection.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. Sec. 1410.222(e) and 1410.216(c)(6), 
only

[[Page 33949]]

projects included in the federally approved STIP shall be eligible for 
funds administered by the FHWA or the FTA.
    (b) In metropolitan planning areas, transportation projects 
requiring 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funds administered by the 
FHWA or the FTA shall be selected from the approved TIP/STIP in 
accordance with procedures established pursuant to the project 
selection portion of the metropolitan planning regulation in subpart C 
of this part.
    (c) Outside metropolitan planning areas, transportation projects 
undertaken on the National Highway System with title 23 funds and under 
the bridge and Interstate maintenance programs shall be selected from 
the approved STIP by the State in consultation with the affected local 
officials. Federal lands highway projects shall be selected from the 
approved STIP in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204. Other transportation 
projects undertaken with funds administered by the FHWA shall be 
selected from the approved STIP by the State in cooperation with the 
affected local officials, and projects undertaken with 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53 funds shall be selected from the approved STIP by the State 
in cooperation with the appropriate affected local officials and 
transit operators.
    (d) The projects in the first year of an approved STIP shall 
constitute an ``agreed to'' list of projects for subsequent scheduling 
and implementation. No further action under paragraphs (b) or (c) of 
this section is required for the implementing agency to proceed with 
these projects except that if appropriated Federal funds available are 
significantly less than the authorized amounts, Sec. 1410.332(c) 
provides for a revised list of ``agreed to'' projects to be developed 
upon the request of the State, the MPO, or transit operators. If an 
implementing agency wishes to proceed with a project in the second and 
third year of the STIP, the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
this section or as agreed to by the parties under paragraph (e) of this 
section must be used.
    (e) Expedited procedures which provide for the advancement of 
projects from the second or third years of the STIP may be used if 
agreed to by all the parties involved in the selection process.


Sec. 1410.226  Applicability of NEPA to transportation planning and 
programming.

    Any decision by the Secretary concerning a transportation plan or 
transportation improvement program developed through the processes 
provided for in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 through 5305, 
shall not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review under 
NEPA.

Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming


Sec. 1410.300  Purpose of planning process.

    The purpose of this subpart is to implement 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 
U.S.C. 5303-5306 which require that a Metropolitan Planning 
Organization (MPO) be designated for each urbanized area (UZA) and that 
the metropolitan area have a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive 
transportation planning process that results in plans and programs that 
consider all transportation modes and support metropolitan community 
development and social goals. The transportation plan and program shall 
facilitate the development, management and operation of an integrated, 
intermodal transportation system that enables the safe, efficient, 
economic movement of people and goods.


Sec. 1410.302  Organizations and processes affected by planning 
requirements.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to agencies 
responsible for satisfying the requirements of the transportation 
planning, programming, and project development processes in 
metropolitan planning areas pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134.


Sec. 1410.304  Definitions.

    Except as otherwise provided in subpart A of this part, terms 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302 are used in this part as 
so defined.


Sec. 1410.306  What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization and how is 
it created?

    (a) Designations of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) made 
after December 18, 1991, shall be by agreement among the Governor(s) 
and units of general purpose local governments representing 75 percent 
of the affected metropolitan population (including the central city or 
cities as defined by the Bureau of the Census), or in accordance with 
procedures established by applicable State or local law. A single 
metropolitan planning organization, to the extent possible, shall be 
designated to serve a metropolitan planning area containing:
    (1) A single UZA, or
    (2) Multiple UZAs that are contiguous with each other or located 
within the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
    (b) The designation or redesignation shall clearly identify the 
policy body that is the forum for cooperative decision making that will 
be taking the required approval actions as the MPO.
    (c) To the extent possible, the MPO designated should be 
established under specific State legislation, State enabling 
legislation, or by interstate compact, and shall have authority to 
carry out metropolitan transportation planning.
    (d) Nothing in this subpart shall be deemed to prohibit an MPO from 
utilizing the staff resources of other agencies to carry out selected 
elements of the planning process.
    (e) Existing MPO designations remain valid until a new MPO is 
redesignated. Redesignation is accomplished by the Governor and local 
units of government representing 75 percent of the population in the 
area served by the existing MPO (the central city(ies) must be among 
those desiring to revoke the MPO designation). If the Governor and 
local officials decide to redesignate an existing MPO, but do not 
formally revoke the existing MPO designation, the existing MPO 
designation remains in effect until a new MPO is formally designated.
    (f) Redesignation of an MPO in a multistate metropolitan area 
requires the approval of the Governor of each State and local officials 
representing 75 percent of the population in the entire metropolitan 
planning area. The local officials in the central city(ies) must be 
among those agreeing to the redesignation.
    (g) Redesignation of an MPO covering more than one UZA requires the 
approval of the Governor(s) and local officials representing 75 percent 
of the population in the metropolitan planning area covered by the 
current MPO. The local officials in the central city(ies) in each 
urbanized area must be among those agreeing to the redesignation.
    (h) The voting membership of an MPO policy body designated/
redesignated subsequent to December 18, 1991, and serving a TMA, must 
include representation of local elected officials, officials of 
agencies that administer or operate major modes or systems of 
transportation, e.g., transit operators, sponsors of major local 
airports, maritime ports, rail operators, etc. (including all 
transportation agencies that were included in the MPO on June 1, 1991), 
and appropriate State officials. Where agencies that operate other 
major modes of transportation do not already have a voice on existing 
MPOs, the MPOs (in cooperation with the States) are encouraged to 
provide such agencies a voice in the decision making process, including 
representation/membership

[[Page 33950]]

on the policy body and/or other appropriate committees. Further, where 
appropriate, existing MPOs should increase the representation of local 
elected officials on the policy board and other committees as a means 
for encouraging their greater involvement in MPO processes. Adding such 
representation to an MPO will not, in itself, constitute a 
redesignation action.
    (i) Where the metropolitan planning area boundary for a previously 
designated MPO needs to be expanded, the membership on the MPO policy 
body and other committees, should be reviewed to ensure that the added 
area has appropriate representation.
    (j) Adding membership (e.g., local elected officials and operators 
of major modes or systems of transportation, or representatives of 
newly urbanized areas) to the policy body or expansion of the 
metropolitan planning area does not automatically require redesignation 
of the MPO. This may be done without a formal redesignation. The 
Governor and MPO shall review the previous MPO designation, State and 
local law, MPO bylaws, etc., to determine if this can be accomplished 
without a formal redesignation. If redesignation is considered 
necessary, the existing MPO will remain in effect until a new MPO is 
formally designated or the existing designation is formally revoked in 
accordance with the procedures of this section.


Sec. 1410.308  Establishing the geographic boundaries for metropolitan 
transportation planning areas.

    (a) The metropolitan planning area boundary shall, as a minimum, 
cover the UZA(s) and the contiguous geographic area(s) likely to become 
urbanized within, at a minimum, the twenty year forecast period covered 
by the transportation plan described in Sec. 1410.322.
    (1) For existing MPOs, unless modified by agreement of the Governor 
and the MPO, the planning area boundaries shall be those in existence 
as of June 9, 1998. For MPOs designated after June 9, 1998, the 
boundaries shall be those agreed to by the Governor and local officials 
as indicated in Sec. 1410.306(a).
    (2) The boundary may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical 
area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the 
Bureau of the Census.
    (3) For new MPOs, the planning area boundary shall reflect 
agreements between the MPO and the State DOT regarding the relationship 
of the metropolitan planning area boundary to any nonattainment and 
maintenance area within its designated limits or contiguous 
nonattainment or maintenance area excluded from the boundary.
    (b) The metropolitan planning area for a new UZA served by an 
existing or new MPO shall be established in accordance with these 
criteria. The current planning area boundaries for previously 
designated UZAs shall be reviewed and modified if necessary to comply 
with these criteria.
    (c) In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, 
the planning areas currently in use for all transportation modes should 
be reviewed before establishing the metropolitan planning area 
boundary. Where appropriate, adjustments should be made to reflect the 
most comprehensive boundary to foster an effective planning process 
that ensures connectivity between modes and their operational 
integration, and promotes efficient overall transportation investment 
strategies in support of mobility and accessibility.
    (d) Approval of metropolitan planning area boundaries by the FHWA 
and/or the FTA is not required. However, metropolitan planning area 
boundary maps must be submitted to the FHWA and the FTA after their 
approval by the MPO and the Governor and be made publicly available.
    (e) The STP funds suballocated to urbanized areas greater than 
200,000 in population shall not be utilized for projects outside the 
metropolitan planning area boundary.


Sec. 1410.310  Agreements among organizations involved in the planning 
process.

    (a) The responsibilities for cooperatively carrying out 
transportation planning and programming shall be clearly identified in 
an agreement or memorandum of understanding among the State(s), 
operators of publicly owned mass transit, and the MPO.
    (b) Where project development activities are conducted under the 
planning process, they shall be documented in an agreement between the 
MPO and the applicable project sponsor addressing, at a minimum, the 
provisions of Sec. 1410.318.
    (c) In nonattainment or maintenance areas, if the MPO is not 
designated as the agency responsible for air quality planning under 
section 174 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), there shall be an 
agreement between the MPO and the designated agency describing their 
respective roles and responsibilities for air quality related 
transportation planning.
    (d) Where the parties involved agree, the requirement for 
agreements specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section 
may be satisfied by including the responsibilities and procedures for 
carrying out a cooperative process in the unified planning work program 
or a prospectus.
    (e) If the metropolitan planning area does not include the entire 
nonattainment or maintenance area, there shall be an agreement among 
the State department of transportation, State air quality agency, 
affected local agencies, and the MPO describing the process for 
cooperative planning and analysis of all projects outside the 
metropolitan planning area but within the nonattainment or maintenance 
area. The agreement must indicate how the total transportation related 
emissions for the nonattainment or maintenance area, including areas 
both within and outside the metropolitan planning area, will be treated 
for the purposes of determining conformity in accordance with the U.S. 
EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). The agreement shall 
address policy mechanisms for resolving conflicts concerning 
transportation related emissions that may arise between the 
metropolitan planning area and the portion of the nonattainment or 
maintenance area outside the metropolitan planning area. Proposals to 
exclude a portion of the nonattainment or maintenance area from the 
planning area boundary shall be coordinated with the FHWA, the FTA, the 
EPA, and the State air quality agency before a final boundary decision 
is made for the metropolitan planning area.
    (f) Where more than one MPO has authority within a metropolitan 
planning area, a nonattainment or maintenance area, and/or in the case 
of adjoining metropolitan planning areas, there shall be an agreement 
between the State department(s) of transportation and the MPOs 
describing how the processes and projects will be coordinated to assure 
the development of an overall transportation plan for the planning 
area(s). In metropolitan planning areas that are nonattainment or 
maintenance areas, the agreement shall include State and local air 
quality agencies, and be consistent with the provisions of 
Sec. 1410.312(c). The agreement shall address policy mechanisms for 
resolving potential conflicts that may arise between the MPOs, e.g., 
issues related to the exclusion of a portion of the nonattainment area 
from the planning area boundary.
    (g) Where the planning process develops an ITS Integration Strategy

[[Page 33951]]

under the provisions of Sec. 1410.322(b)(11), there shall be an 
agreement among the MPO, the State DOT, the transit operator and other 
agencies as described in the ITS Integration Strategy. This agreement 
shall address policy and operational issues that will affect the 
successful implementation of the ITS Integration Strategy, including at 
a minimum ITS project interoperability, utilization of ITS related 
standards, and the routine operation of the projects identified in the 
ITS Integration Strategy;
    (h) To the extent possible, a single cooperative agreement 
containing the understandings required by paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
this section among the State(s), the MPO, publicly owned operators of 
mass transportation services, and air quality agencies may be 
developed. Where the participating planning organizations desire, they 
may further consolidate agreements required by paragraphs (d) through 
(g) of this section with those addressed in paragraphs (a) through (c) 
of this section.
    (i) For all requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of 
this section, existing agreements shall be reviewed by the MPO, the 
State DOT and the transit operator for compliance and reaffirmed or 
modified as necessary to ensure participation by all appropriate modes.


Sec. 1410.312  Planning process organizational relationships.

    (a) The MPO in cooperation with the State and with operators of 
publicly owned transit services shall be responsible for carrying out 
the metropolitan transportation planning process. The MPO, the State 
and transit operator(s) shall cooperatively determine their mutual 
responsibilities in the conduct of the planning process. They shall 
cooperatively develop the unified planning work program, transportation 
plan, and transportation improvement program specified in 
Secs. 1410.314 through 1410.332. In addition, the development of the 
plan and TIP shall be coordinated with other providers of 
transportation, e.g., sponsors of regional airports, maritime port 
operators, rail freight operators, and where appropriate, planning 
agencies in Mexico and/or Canada.
    (b) The MPO shall approve the metropolitan transportation plan, 
plan amendments and plan updates. The MPO and the Governor shall 
approve the metropolitan transportation improvement program and any 
amendments.
    (c) In nonattainment or maintenance areas:
    (1) The transportation and air quality planning processes shall be 
coordinated;
    (2) TCMs proposed for FHWA and FTA funding and/or approvals shall 
come from a plan and TIP that fully meet the requirements of this 
subpart (new TCMs authorized to proceed during a conformity lapse will 
meet the requirements of this subpart if they are included in an 
interim plan and program and approved into a SIP with emission 
reduction benefits); and
    (3) MPOs shall participate in the development of motor vehicle 
emissions budgets, inventories and other transportation related air 
quality activities undertaken to develop SIPs to the extent required by 
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504).
    (d) In nonattainment or maintenance areas for transportation 
related pollutants, the MPO shall not approve any transportation plan 
or program which does not conform with the SIP, as determined in 
accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 
93).
    (e) If more than one MPO has authority in a metropolitan planning 
area (including multi-State metropolitan planning areas) or in an area 
which is designated as nonattainment or maintenance for transportation 
related pollutants, the MPOs and the Governor(s) shall cooperatively 
establish the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area (addressing 
the required twenty year planning horizon and relationship to the 
nonattainment or maintenance areas) and the respective jurisdictional 
responsibilities of each MPO. The MPOs shall consult with each other 
and the State(s) to assure that plans and transportation improvement 
programs are coordinated for the entire metropolitan planning area, 
including, but not limited to, coordinated data collection, analysis 
and plan development. Alternatively, a single plan and/or TIP for the 
entire metropolitan area may be developed jointly by the MPOs in 
cooperation with their planning partners. Coordination efforts shall be 
documented in subsequent transmittals of the unified planning work 
program (UPWP) and various planning products (the plan, TIP, etc.) to 
the State(s), the FHWA, and the FTA.
    (f) The FTA and the FHWA must designate as transportation 
management areas all UZAs over 200,000 population as determined by the 
most recent decennial census. The TMAs so designated and those 
designated subsequently by the FTA and the FHWA (including those 
designated upon request of the MPO and the Governor) must comply with 
the special requirements applicable to such areas regarding congestion 
management systems, project selection, and planning certification. The 
TMA designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area 
boundary. If a metropolitan planning area encompasses a TMA and other 
UZA(s), the designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning 
area regardless of the population of constituent UZAs.
    (g) In TMAs, the congestion management system shall be developed as 
part of the metropolitan transportation planning process.
    (h) The State shall cooperatively participate in the development of 
metropolitan transportation plans and metropolitan plans shall be 
coordinated with the statewide transportation plan. The relationship of 
the statewide transportation plan and the metropolitan plan is 
specified in subpart B of this part.
    (i) Where a metropolitan planning area includes Federal public 
lands and/or Indian Tribal lands, the affected Federal agencies and 
Indian Tribal Governments shall be consulted in the development of 
transportation plans and programs.
    (j) Discretionary grants awarded by the FHWA and the FTA under 
section 1221 of the TEA-21 (23 U.S.C. 101 note) (Transportation and 
Community and System Preservation Pilot Program), sections 1118 and 
1119 of the TEA-21 (Borders and Corridors) and section 3037 (49 U.S.C. 
5309 note) (Access to Jobs) shall be included in the appropriate 
metropolitan plan and program, except where these funds are utilized 
for planning and/or research activities. Applicants shall coordinate 
with the appropriate MPO to ensure that such projects are consistent 
with the provisions of this subpart. Where planning and research 
activities are funded under the Transportation and Community and System 
Preservation Pilot Program or the Borders and Corridors Program, they 
shall be identified in the Unified Planning Work Program as identified 
at Sec. 1410.314.


Sec. 1410.314  Planning tasks and unified work program.

    (a) The MPO(s) in cooperation with the State and operators of 
publicly owned transit shall develop unified planning work programs 
(UPWPs) that meet the requirements of 23 CFR part 420, subpart A, and:
    (1) Discuss the planning priorities facing the metropolitan 
planning area and describe all metropolitan transportation and 
transportation-related air quality planning activities

[[Page 33952]]

anticipated within the area during the next one or two year period, 
regardless of funding sources or agencies conducting activities, in 
sufficient detail to indicate who will perform the work, the schedule 
for completing it and the products that will be produced; and
    (2) Document planning activities to be performed with funds 
provided under title 23 and Chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C.
    (b) Arrangements may be made with the FHWA and the FTA to combine 
the UPWP requirements with the work program for other Federal sources 
of planning funds.
    (c) In areas not designated as TMAs and which are in attainment for 
air quality purposes, the MPO in cooperation with the State and transit 
operator(s), with the approval of the FHWA and the FTA, may prepare a 
simplified statement of work, in lieu of a UPWP, that describes who 
will perform the work and the work that will be accomplished using 
Federal funds (administered under title 23 U.S.C. and Chapter 53 of 
title 49 U.S.C. If a simplified statement of work is used, it may be 
submitted as part of the statewide planning work program, in accordance 
with 23 CFR part 420.
    (d) MPOs, which include non-attainment or maintenance areas, should 
consult with the US EPA and state/local air agencies in the development 
of their UPWP regarding appropriate tasks to support attainment of air 
quality standards.


Sec. 1410.316  Transportation planning process and plan development.

    (a) Each metropolitan planning process shall provide for 
consideration of projects and strategies that will:
    (1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan planning 
area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and 
efficiency;
    (2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system 
for motorized and non-motorized users;
    (3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to 
people and for freight;
    (4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy 
conservation, and improve quality of life;
    (5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation 
system, across and between modes, for people and freight;
    (6) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
    (7) Emphasize the efficient preservation of the existing 
transportation system.
    (b) In addition, the metropolitan transportation planning process 
shall develop and adopt a proactive public involvement process that 
provides complete information, timely public notice, full public access 
to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the 
public in developing plans and TIPs. To attain these objectives the 
process as developed shall meet the requirements and criteria as 
follows:
    (1) Require a minimum public comment period of 45 days before the 
public involvement process is initially adopted or revised;
    (2) Provide timely information about transportation issues and 
processes (including but not limited to initiation of plan and TIP 
updates, revisions and/or other modifications and the general structure 
of the planning process) to citizens, affected public agencies, 
representatives of transportation agency employees, users of public 
transit, freight shippers, private providers of transportation, other 
interested parties and segments of the community affected by 
transportation plans, programs and projects (including but not limited 
to central city and other local jurisdiction concerns);
    (3) Provide reasonable public access to technical and policy 
information used in the development of plans and TIPs and open public 
meetings where matters related to the Federal-aid highway and transit 
programs are being considered;
    (4) Require adequate public notice of public involvement activities 
and time for public review and comment at key decision points, 
including, but not limited to, approval of plans and TIPs (in 
nonattainment areas classified as serious and above, the comment period 
shall be at least 30 days for the plan, TIP and major amendment(s));
    (5) Demonstrate explicit consideration, recognition and feedback to 
public input received during the planning and program development 
processes, including responses to input received from minority, 
elderly, low-income, and persons with disabilities populations;
    (6) Seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally under 
served by existing transportation systems, including, but not limited 
to, low-income, the elderly, persons with disabilities and minority 
populations;
    (7) When comments are received on the draft transportation plan or 
TIP (including the financial plan) as a result of the public 
involvement process or the interagency consultation process required 
under the U.S. EPA conformity regulations, a summary, analysis, and 
report on the disposition of comments shall be made part of the final 
plan and TIP;
    (8) If the final transportation plan or TIP differs significantly 
from the one which was made available for public comment by the MPO and 
raises new material issues which interested parties could not 
reasonably have foreseen from the public involvement efforts, an 
additional opportunity for public comment on the revised plan or TIP 
shall be made available;
    (9) Public involvement processes shall be periodically reviewed by 
the MPO in terms of their effectiveness in assuring that the process 
provides full and open access to all, with specific attention to the 
effectiveness of efforts to engage persons with disabilities, minority 
individuals, the elderly and low income populations;
    (10) These procedures will be reviewed by the FHWA and the FTA 
during certification reviews for TMAs, and as otherwise necessary for 
all MPOs, to assure that full and open access is provided to MPO 
decision making processes;
    (11) Metropolitan public involvement processes shall be coordinated 
with statewide public involvement processes and with project 
development public involvement processes wherever possible to enhance 
public consideration of the issues, plans, and programs and reduce 
redundancies and costs.
    (c) Transportation plan development and plans shall be consistent 
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
2000d-1) and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 21 and 23 CFR part 
230); section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. 
324); the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); the 
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 
327, as amended) and implementing regulations (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 
38); section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 
implementing regulations (49 CFR part 35), which ensure that no person 
shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, age, or 
physical handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied 
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any 
program or activity receiving Federal assistance from the United States 
Department of Transportation. Consistency shall be demonstrated 
through:
    (1) An assessment covering the entire metropolitan planning area, 
including at a minimum the following:
    (i) A geographic and demographic profile of the metropolitan 
planning

[[Page 33953]]

area that identifies the low-income and minority, and where 
appropriate, the elderly and persons with disabilities components of 
this profile,
    (ii) The transportation services available to and planned for these 
segments of the metropolitan planning area's population, and
    (iii) Any disproportionately high and adverse environmental 
impacts, including interrelated social and economic impacts, affecting 
these populations, consistent with the provisions of Executive Order 
12898 as implemented through U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 and FHWA Order 
6640.23. Adverse effects can include a denial of or a reduction in 
benefits;
    (2) Consideration of comments received during public involvement 
efforts (consistent with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this 
section to ensure that expressed concerns of the elderly, low-income 
individuals, minority individuals and persons with disabilities, have 
been addressed during plan and program decision making;
    (3) Identification of prior and planned efforts to address any 
disproportionately high and adverse effects that are found;
    (4) The results of paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of this section 
will be documented in a manner to permit public review during 
appropriate project development activities. In accordance with 
Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2, and FHWA Order 6640.23, 
nothing in this subpart is intended to nor shall create any right to 
judicial review of any action taken by the agencies, their officers or 
recipients under this subpart to comply with such orders.
    (d) The transportation planning process shall identify actions 
necessary to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 
U.S. DOT regulations ``Transportation for Individuals With 
Disabilities'' (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38) and section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and implementing regulations (49 CFR part 
35).
    (e) The transportation plan development process shall provide for 
the involvement of traffic, ridesharing, parking, transportation safety 
and enforcement agencies; commuter rail operators; airport and port 
authorities; toll authorities; appropriate private transportation 
providers and where appropriate city officials; freight shippers; 
transit users.
    (f) The transportation planning process shall provide for the 
involvement of local, State, and Federal environmental resource and 
permit agencies as appropriate.
    (g) The transportation planning process shall provide for the 
involvement of Indian Tribal Governments and the Secretary of Interior 
on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan affecting areas 
under the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribal Government.
    (h) Simplified planning procedures may be proposed in non-TMAs 
which are in attainment for air quality purposes. The FHWA and the FTA 
shall review the proposed procedures for consistency with the 
requirements of this section.
    (i) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include 
preparation of technical and other reports to assure documentation of 
the development, refinement, and update of the transportation plan. The 
reports shall be reasonably available to interested parties, consistent 
with paragraph (b) of this section.
    (j) The metropolitan planning process should provide a forum to 
coordinate all federally funded non-emergency transportation services 
within the metropolitan planning area. Where coordination processes are 
developed within the transportation planning process, at a minimum they 
should address the planning and delivery of services supporting access 
to jobs and reverse commute options, relying where feasible on existing 
processes and procedures.


Sec. 1410.318  Relation of planning and project development processes.

    (a) In order to coordinate and streamline the planning and NEPA 
processes, the planning process, through the cooperation of the MPO, 
the State DOT and the transit operator, shall provide the following to 
the NEPA process:
    (1) An identification of an initial statement of purpose and need 
for transportation investments;
    (2) Findings and conclusions regarding purpose and need, 
identification and evaluation of alternatives studied in planning 
activities (including but not limited to the relevant design concepts 
and scope of the proposed action), and identification of the 
alternative included in the plan;
    (3) An identification of the planning documents that provide the 
basis for paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section; and
    (4) Formal expressions of policy support or comment by the planning 
process participants on paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
    (b) The following sources of information shall be utilized to 
satisfy paragraph (a) of this section at a level of detail agreed to by 
the MPO, the State DOT, and the transit operator:
    (1) Inventories of social, economic and environmental resources and 
conditions;
    (2) Analyses of economic, social and environmental consequences;
    (3) Evaluation(s) of transportation benefits, other benefits, 
costs, and consequences, at a geographic scale agreed to by the 
planning participants, of alternatives, including but not limited to 
the relevant design concepts and scope of the proposed action;
    (4) Data and supporting analyses to facilitate funding related 
decisions by Federal agencies where appropriate or required, including 
but not limited to 49 CFR part 611.
    (c) The products resulting from paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section shall be reviewed early in the NEPA process in accordance with 
Sec. 1420.201 to determine their appropriate use.
    (d) In order to streamline subsequent project development analyses 
and studies, and promote better decision making, the FTA and the FHWA 
strongly encourage all Federal, State, and local agencies with 
subsequent project level responsibilities for investments included in a 
transportation plan to do the following:
    (1) Participate in planning analyses and studies to the extent 
possible;
    (2) Provide early identification of key concerns for later 
consideration and analysis as needed; and
    (3) Utilize the sources of information identified in paragraph (b) 
of this section.
    (e) The analyses conducted under paragraph (b)(3) of this section 
may serve as the alternatives analysis required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e) 
for new fixed guideway transit systems and extensions and the 
information required under 49 CFR part 611 shall be generated.
    (f) Any decision by the Secretary concerning a transportation plan 
or transportation improvement program developed in accordance with this 
part shall not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review 
under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). At the discretion of the MPO, in 
cooperation with the State DOT and the transit operator, an 
environmental analysis may be conducted on a transportation plan.
    (g) The FHWA and the FTA project level actions, including but not 
limited to issuance of a categorical exclusion, finding of no 
significant impact or final environmental impact statement under 23 CFR 
part 1420, approval of right of way acquisition, interstate interchange 
approvals, approvals of HOV

[[Page 33954]]

conversions, funding of ITS projects, final design and construction, 
and transit vehicle acquisition, may not be completed unless the 
proposed project is included in a plan and the phase of the project for 
which Federal action is sought is included in the metropolitan TIP. 
None of these project-level actions can occur in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas unless the project conforms according to the 
requirements of the US EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 
93).


Sec. 1410.320  Congestion management system and planning process.

    (a) In TMAs designated as nonattainment for ozone or carbon 
monoxide, Federal funds may not be programmed for any project that will 
result in a significant increase in carrying capacity for single 
occupant vehicles (a new general purpose highway on a new location or 
adding general purpose lanes, with the exception of safety improvements 
or the elimination of bottlenecks) unless the project results from a 
congestion management system (CMS) meeting the requirements of 23 CFR 
part 500. Such projects shall incorporate all reasonably available 
strategies to manage the single occupant vehicle (SOV) facility 
effectively (or to facilitate its management in the future). Other 
travel demand reduction and operational management strategies, as 
appropriate for the corridor, but not appropriate for incorporation 
into the SOV facility itself, shall be committed to by the State and 
the MPO for implementation in a timely manner, but no later than the 
completion date for the SOV project.
    (b) In TMAs, the planning process must include the development of a 
CMS that provides for effective management of new and existing 
transportation facilities through the use of travel demand reduction 
and operational management.
    (c) The effectiveness of the congestion management system in 
enhancing transportation investment decisions and improving the overall 
efficiency of the metropolitan area's transportation systems and 
facilities shall be evaluated periodically, preferably as part of the 
metropolitan planning process.


Sec. 1410.322  Transportation plan content.

    (a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include 
the development of a transportation plan addressing at least a twenty 
year planning horizon. The plan shall include both long-range and 
short-range strategies/actions, including, but not limited to, 
operations and management activities, that lead to the systematic 
development of an integrated intermodal transportation system that 
facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in 
addressing current and future transportation demand. The transportation 
plan shall be reviewed and updated every five years in attainment areas 
and at least triennially in nonattainment and maintenance areas to 
confirm its validity and its consistency with current and forecasted 
transportation and land use conditions and trends and to extend the 
forecast period. The transportation plan must be approved by the MPO. 
Update processes shall include a mechanism for ensuring that the MPO, 
the State DOT and the transit operator agree that the data utilized in 
preparing other existing modal plans providing input to the 
transportation plan are valid and benchmarked in relation to each other 
and the transportation plan. In updating a plan, the MPO shall base the 
update on the latest estimates and assumptions for population, land 
use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity. 
Reaffirmation or revisions of metropolitan plan contents and supporting 
analyses produced by an update review require approval by the MPO.
    (b) In addition, the plan shall, consistent with the following:
    (1) Identify the projected transportation demand of persons and 
goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of the plan;
    (2) Identify adopted management and operations strategies (e.g., 
traveler information, traffic surveillance and control, incident and 
emergency response, freight routing, reconstruction and work zones 
management, weather response, pricing, fare payment alternatives, 
public transportation management, demand management, alternative 
routing, telecommuting, parking management, and intermodal 
connectivity) that address the need for improved system performance and 
the delivery of transportation services to customers under varying 
conditions;
    (3) Identify pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation 
facilities in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g);
    (4) Reflect the consideration given to the results of the 
congestion management system, including in TMAs that are nonattainment 
areas for carbon monoxide and ozone, identification of SOV projects 
that result from a congestion management system that meets the 
requirements of 23 CFR part 500;
    (5) Assess capital investment and other measures necessary to 
preserve the existing transportation system (including requirements for 
operational improvements, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation 
of existing and future major roadways, as well as operations, 
maintenance, modernization, and rehabilitation of existing and future 
transit facilities) and make the most efficient use of existing 
transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and enhance 
the mobility of people and goods;
    (6) Include design concept and scope descriptions of all existing 
and proposed transportation facilities in sufficient detail, regardless 
of the source of funding, in nonattainment and maintenance areas to 
permit conformity determinations under the U.S. EPA conformity 
regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. In all areas, all proposed 
improvements shall be described in sufficient detail to develop cost 
estimates;
    (7) Reflect a multimodal evaluation of the transportation, 
socioeconomic, environmental, and financial impact of the overall plan;
    (8) Reflect, to the extent that they exist, consideration of: 
Comprehensive long-range land use plan(s) and development objectives; 
State and local housing goals and strategies, community development and 
employment plans and strategies, and environmental resource plans; 
linking low income households with employment opportunities as 
reflected in work force training and labor mobility plans and 
strategies; energy conservation goals; and the metropolitan area's 
overall social, economic, and environmental goals and objectives;
    (9) Indicate, as appropriate, proposed transportation enhancement 
activities as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a); and
    (10) Include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of 
proposed transportation investments (including illustrative projects 
where identified in the financial plan) with already available and 
projected sources of revenue. The financial plan shall compare the 
estimated revenue from existing and proposed funding sources that can 
reasonably be expected to be available for transportation uses, and the 
estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the total 
(existing plus planned) transportation system over the period of the 
plan. Financial estimates utilized in preparing transportation plans 
(and TIPs) shall be developed through procedures cooperatively 
established and mutually agreed to by the MPO, the State DOT and the 
transit operator(s). The estimated revenue by existing revenue source 
(local, State, Federal and private) available for transportation 
projects

[[Page 33955]]

shall be determined and any shortfalls identified. Proposed new 
revenues and/or revenue sources to cover shortfalls shall be 
identified, including strategies for ensuring their availability for 
proposed investments. Existing and proposed revenues shall cover all 
forecasted capital, operating, management, and maintenance costs. All 
cost and revenue projections shall be based on the data reflecting the 
existing situation and historical trends. For nonattainment and 
maintenance areas, the financial plan shall address the specific 
financial strategies required to ensure the implementation of projects 
and programs to reach air quality compliance.
    (11) Include an ITS integration strategy for the purposes of 
guiding and coordinating the management and funding of ITS investments 
supported with highway trust fund dollars to achieve an integrated 
regional system. The scope of the integration strategy shall be 
appropriate to the scale of investment anticipated for ITS during the 
life of the plan and shall address the resource commitments and staging 
of planned investments. Provision shall be made to include 
participation from the following agencies, at a minimum, in the 
development of the integration strategy: Highway and public safety 
agencies; appropriate Federal lands agencies; State motor carrier 
agencies as appropriate; and other operating agencies necessary to 
fully address regional ITS integration. In determining how ITS 
investments will meet metropolitan goals and objectives, the 
integration strategy shall clearly assess existing and future ITS 
systems, including their functions and electronic information sharing 
expectations. Unique regional ITS initiatives (a program of related 
projects) that are multi-jurisdictional and/or multi-modal, ITS 
projects that affect regional integration of ITS systems, and projects 
which directly support national interoperability shall be identified. 
Documentation within the plan shall reflect the scale of investment and 
the needs and size of the metropolitan area.
    (c) There must be adequate opportunity for public official 
(including elected officials) and citizen involvement in the 
development of the transportation plan before it is approved by the 
MPO, in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1410.316(b). Such 
procedures shall include opportunities for interested parties 
(including citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of 
transportation agency employees, freight shippers, representatives of 
users of public transit, providers of freight transportation services, 
and private providers of transportation) to be involved in the early 
stages of the plan development/update process. The procedures shall 
include publication of the proposed plan or other methods to make it 
readily available for public review and comment and, in nonattainment 
TMAs, an opportunity for at least one formal public meeting annually to 
review planning assumptions and the plan development process with 
interested parties and the general public. The procedures also shall 
include publication of the approved plan or other methods to make it 
readily available for information purposes.
    (d) In nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation 
related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the MPO, must make 
a conformity determination on any new/revised plan in accordance with 
the Clean Air Act and the EPA conformity regulations (40 CFR parts 51 
and 93). If a conformity determination cannot be accomplished by either 
the MPO and or the FHWA and the FTA, the results will be communicated 
to the Governor or the Governor's designee and the public transit 
operator with an explanation of the potential consequences.
    (e) The FHWA and the FTA do not approve transportation plans. 
However, Federal actions and approvals, including, but not limited to, 
conformity determinations, planning findings (pursuant to 
Sec. 1410.322(b)), STIP approvals, completion of the NEPA process, 
grant agreements, and project authorizations, are based on a 
transportation plan with a horizon of at least twenty years on the 
effective date of the plan. Plans that remain substantially unchanged 
(i.e., regionally significant projects in attainment areas and non-
exempt projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas have not been 
added) after adoption may serve as the basis for subsequent Federal 
actions until such time as the next update. In attainment areas the 
effective date of the plan shall be its date of adoption by the MPO. In 
nonattainment and maintenance areas, the effective date shall be the 
date of a conformity determination by the FHWA and the FTA.
    (f) Although transportation plans do not need to be approved by the 
FHWA or the FTA, copies of any new/revised plans must be provided to 
each agency.
    (g) During a conformity lapse metropolitan areas can prepare an 
interim plan as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to 
proceed under a conformity lapse (as defined in 40 CFR parts 51 and 
93). In areas which expect to return to conformity earlier than six 
months, the emphasis should be on reestablishing conformity, rather 
than embarking on developing an interim plan and TIP.


Sec. 1410.324  Transportation improvement program content.

    (a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include 
development of a transportation improvement program (TIP) for the 
metropolitan planning area by the MPO in cooperation with the State and 
public transit operators.
    (b) The TIP must be updated at least every two years and approved 
by the MPO and the Governor. The frequency and cycle for updating the 
TIP must be compatible with the STIP development and approval process. 
Since the TIP becomes part of the STIP, the TIP lapses when the FHWA 
and the FTA approval for the STIP lapses. In the case of extenuating 
circumstances, the FHWA and the FTA will consider and take appropriate 
action on requests to extend the STIP approval period for all or part 
of the STIP in accordance with Sec. 1410.222(c). TIP extensions shall 
not be granted in nonattainment or maintenance areas. Although 
metropolitan TIPs are not approved individually by the FHWA or the FTA, 
they are approved as part of the STIP approval action by the FTA and 
the FHWA. Copies of any new or amended TIPs must be provided to each 
agency. Additionally, in nonattainment and maintenance areas for 
transportation related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the 
MPO, must make a conformity determination on any new or amended TIPs 
(unless the new amended TIP consists entirely of exempt projects) in 
accordance with the Clean Air Act requirements and the EPA conformity 
regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
    (c) There must be reasonable opportunity for public comment in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1410.316(b) and, in 
nonattainment TMAs, an opportunity for at least one formal public 
meeting during the TIP development process. This public meeting may be 
combined with the public meeting required under Sec. 1410.322(c). The 
proposed TIP shall be published or otherwise made readily available for 
review and comment. Similarly, the approved TIP shall be published or 
otherwise made readily available for information purposes.
    (d) The TIP shall cover a period of not less than three years, but 
may cover a longer period if it identifies priorities and financial 
information for the additional years. The TIP must include a priority 
list of projects to be advanced in the first three years. As a minimum,

[[Page 33956]]

the priority list shall group the projects that are to be undertaken in 
each of the years, i.e., year one, year two, year three. In 
nonattainment and maintenance areas, the TIP shall give priority to 
eligible TCMs identified in the approved SIP in accordance with the 
U.S. EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and shall 
provide for their timely implementation.
    (e) The TIP shall be financially constrained by year and include a 
financial plan that demonstrates which projects can be implemented 
using current revenue sources and which projects are to be implemented 
using proposed revenue sources (while the existing transportation 
system is being adequately operated and maintained). The financial plan 
shall be developed by the MPO in cooperation with the State and the 
transit operator. Financial estimates utilized in preparing TIPs shall 
be developed through procedures cooperatively established and mutually 
agreed to by the MPO, the State DOT and the transit operator(s). It is 
expected that the State would develop this information as part of the 
STIP development process and that the estimates would be refined 
through this process. Only projects for which construction and 
operating funds can reasonably be expected to be available (and 
illustrative projects) may be included. In the case of new funding 
sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be 
identified. In developing the financial analysis, the MPO shall take 
into account all projects and strategies funded under title 23, U.S.C., 
49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, other Federal funds, local sources, State 
assistance, and private participation. In nonattainment and maintenance 
areas, projects included for the first two years of the current TIP 
shall be limited to those for which funds are available or committed.
    (f) The TIP shall include:
    (1) All transportation projects, or identified phases of a project, 
(including pedestrian walkways, safety, bicycle transportation 
facilities and transportation enhancement projects) within the 
metropolitan planning area proposed for funding under title 23, U.S.C., 
and Federal Lands Highway projects. Title 49, U.S.C., Emergency relief 
projects (except those involving substantial functional, locational or 
capacity changes) and planning and research activities (except those 
funded with NHS, STP, and/or Minimum Guarantee funds) are exempt from 
this requirement. Planning and research activities funded with NHS, STP 
and/or Minimum Guarantee funds may be excluded from the TIP by 
agreement of the State and the MPO;
    (2) Only projects that are consistent with the transportation plan;
    (3) All regionally significant transportation projects for which an 
FHWA or FTA action is required whether or not the projects are to be 
funded with title 23, U.S.C., or title 49, U.S.C., funds, e.g., 
addition of an interchange to the Interstate System with State, local, 
and/or private funds, demonstration projects not funded under titles 23 
and 49, U.S.C., etc.;
    (4) Any FTA or FHWA funded or approved projects submitted to EPA 
for consideration as a SIP TCM;
    (5) For air quality analysis in nonattainment and maintenance areas 
and informational purposes in other areas, all regionally significant 
transportation projects proposed to be funded with Federal funds, 
including intermodal facilities, not covered in paragraphs (f)(1) or 
(f)(3) of this section; and
    (6) For air quality analysis in nonattainment and maintenance areas 
and informational purposes in other areas, all regionally significant 
projects to be funded with non-Federal funds.
    (g) With respect to each project or project phase under paragraph 
(f) of this section the TIP shall include:
    (1) Sufficient descriptive material (i.e., type of work, termini, 
length, etc.) to identify the project or phase;
    (2) Estimated total project cost (which may extend beyond the three 
years of the TIP);
    (3) The amount of Federal funds proposed to be obligated during 
each program year for the project or phase of the project;
    (4) Proposed category and source of Federal and non-Federal funds;
    (5) Identification of the recipient/subrecipient and State and 
local agencies responsible for carrying out the project or phase of the 
project;
    (6) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, identification of those 
projects or phases of projects which are identified as TCMs in the 
applicable SIP or are new TCMs with emissions benefits being submitted 
for SIP approval during a conformity lapse; and
    (7) In areas with Americans with Disabilities Act required 
paratransit and key station plans, identification of those projects or 
phases of projects which will implement the plans.
    (h) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included shall 
be specified in sufficient detail (design concept and scope) to permit 
air quality analysis in accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity 
requirements (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
    (i) Projects proposed for FHWA and/or FTA funding that are not 
considered by the State and the MPO to be of appropriate scale for 
individual identification in a given program year may be grouped by 
function, geographic area, and work type using applicable 
classifications under 23 CFR 1420.117 (c) and (d). In nonattainment and 
maintenance areas, classifications must be consistent with the exempt 
project classifications contained in the U.S. EPA conformity 
requirements (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). In addition, projects funded 
under Chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. may be grouped by funding category and 
shown as one line unless they are determined to be regionally 
significant.
    (j) Projects utilizing Federal funds that have been allocated to 
the area pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(E) shall be identified.
    (k) The total Federal share of projects included in the TIP 
proposed for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5307 may not exceed formula backed 
apportioned funding levels available to the area for the program year.
    (l) Procedures or agreements that distribute suballocated Surface 
Transportation Program or urbanized area formula (49 U.S.C. 5307) funds 
to individual jurisdictions or modes within the metropolitan area by 
predetermined percentages or formulas are inconsistent with the 
legislative provisions that require MPOs in cooperation with the State 
and transit operators to develop a prioritized and financially 
constrained TIP and shall not be used unless they can be clearly shown 
to be based on considerations required to be addressed as part of the 
planning process.
    (m) For the purpose of including transit projects funded through 
Capital Investment Grants or Loans (49 U.S.C. 5309) in a TIP, the 
following approach shall be followed:
    (1) The total Federal share of projects included in the first year 
of the TIP shall not exceed levels of funding committed to the area; 
and
    (2) The total Federal share of projects included in the second, 
third and/or subsequent years of the TIP may not exceed levels of 
funding committed, apportioned, appropriated (including carryover and 
unobligated balances reasonably expected to be available, to the area.
    (n) As a management tool for monitoring progress in implementing 
the transportation plan, the TIP shall:
    (1) Identify the criteria and process for prioritizing 
implementation of transportation plan elements (including intermodal 
trade-offs) for inclusion in

[[Page 33957]]

the TIP and any changes in priorities from previous TIPs;
    (2) List major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented 
and identify any significant delays in the planned implementation of 
major projects;
    (3) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, describe the progress 
in implementing any required TCMs, including the reasons for any 
significant delays in the planned implementation and strategies for 
ensuring their advancement at the earliest possible time; and
    (4) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, include a list of all 
projects found to conform in a previous TIP. Projects shall be included 
in this list until construction has been fully authorized.
    (5) Serve as a basis for an annual listing of projects for which 
Federal funds have been obligated, supplemented as appropriate to 
ensure annual public access to information on the obligation of funds.
    (o) In order to maintain or establish operations, in the absence of 
an approved metropolitan TIP, the FTA and/or the FHWA Administrators, 
as appropriate, may approve operating assistance.
    (p) During a conformity lapses metropolitan areas may prepare an 
interim TIP as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to 
proceed under a lapse (as defined in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93). In areas 
which expect to return to conformity earlier than six months, the 
emphasis should be on reestablishing conformity, rather than embarking 
on developing an interim plan and TIP.


Sec. 1410.326  Transportation improvement program modification.

    The TIP may be modified at any time under procedures agreed to by 
the cooperating parties consistent with the procedures established in 
this part for its development and approval. In nonattainment or 
maintenance areas for transportation related pollutants, if the TIP is 
modified by adding or deleting non-exempt projects or is replaced with 
a new TIP, a new conformity determinations by the MPO and the FHWA and 
the FTA shall be made. Public involvement procedures consistent with 
Sec. 1410.316(b) shall be utilized in modifying the TIP, except that 
these procedures are not required for TIP modifications that only 
involve projects of the type covered in Sec. 1410.324(i).


Sec. 1410.328  Metropolitan transportation improvement program 
relationship in statewide TIP.

    (a) After approval by the MPO and the Governor, the TIP shall be 
included without modification, directly or by reference, in the STIP 
program required under 23 U.S.C. 135 and consistent with Sec. 1410.220, 
except that in nonattainment and maintenance areas, a conformity 
finding by the FHWA and the FTA must be made before it is included in 
the STIP. After approval by the MPO and the Governor, a copy shall be 
provided to the FHWA and the FTA.
    (b) The State shall notify the appropriate MPO and Federal Lands 
Highways Program agencies, e.g., Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or 
National Park Service, when a TIP including projects under the 
jurisdiction of these agencies has been included in the STIP.


Sec. 1410.330  Transportation improvement program action by FHWA/FTA.

    (a) The FHWA and the FTA must jointly find that each metropolitan 
TIP is consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan produced by 
the continuing, comprehensive transportation process carried on 
cooperatively by the States, the MPOs and the transit operators in 
accordance with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 
5313(b). This finding shall be based on the self-certification 
statement submitted by the State and MPO under Sec. 1410.334, a review 
of the metropolitan transportation plan and upon other reviews as 
deemed necessary by the FHWA and the FTA.
    (b) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the FHWA and the FTA 
must also jointly determine, in accordance with 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, 
that the metropolitan TIP conforms with the applicable SIP and that 
priority has been given to the timely implementation of transportation 
control measures contained in the applicable SIP. As part of their 
review in nonattainment and maintenance areas requiring TCMs, the FHWA 
and the FTA will specifically consider any comments relating to the 
financial plans for the plan and TIP contained in the summary of 
significant comments required under Sec. 1410.316(b). If the TIP is 
determined to be in nonconformance with the SIP, the FHWA and FTA shall 
return the TIP to the Governor and the MPO with an explanation of the 
joint determination and an explanation of potential consequences. If 
the TIP is found to conform with the SIP, the Governor and MPO shall be 
notified of the joint finding. After the FHWA and the FTA find the TIP 
to be in conformance, the TIP shall be incorporated, without 
modification, into the STIP, directly or by reference.
    (c) If an illustrative project is included in the TIP, no Federal 
action may be taken on that project by the FHWA and the FTA until it is 
formally included in the fiscally constrained and conforming plan and 
TIP. The MPOs are not required to include illustrative projects in 
future TIPs.


Sec. 1410.332  Selecting projects from a TIP.

    (a) Once a TIP that meets the requirements of Sec. 1410.324 has 
been developed and approved, the first year of the TIP shall constitute 
an ``agreed to'' list of projects for project selection purposes and no 
further project selection action is required for the implementing 
agency to proceed with projects, except where the appropriated Federal 
funds available to the metropolitan planning area are significantly 
less than the authorized amounts. In this case, a revised ``agreed to'' 
list of projects shall be jointly developed by the MPO, the State, and 
the transit operator if requested by the MPO, the State, or the transit 
operator. If the State or transit operator wishes to proceed with a 
project in the second or third year of the TIP, the specific project 
selection procedures stated in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
must be used unless the MPO, the State, and the transit operator 
jointly develop expedited project selection procedures to provide for 
the advancement of projects from the second or third year of the TIP.
    (b) In areas not designated as TMAs and when Sec. 1410.332(c) does 
not apply, projects to be implemented using title 23 funds other than 
Federal lands projects or title 49 funds shall be selected by the State 
and/or the transit operator, in cooperation with the MPO from the 
approved metropolitan TIP Federal Lands Highway Program projects shall 
be selected in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204.
    (c) In areas designated as TMAs where Sec. 1410.332(c) does not 
apply, all title 23 and title 49 funded projects, except projects on 
the NHS and projects funded under the bridge, and Federal Lands 
Highways programs, shall be selected by the MPO in consultation with 
the State and transit operator from the approved metropolitan TIP and 
in accordance with the priorities in the approved metropolitan TIP. 
Projects on the NHS and projects funded under the bridge program shall 
be selected by the State in cooperation with the MPO, from the approved 
metropolitan TIP. Federal Lands Highway Program projects shall

[[Page 33958]]

be selected in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 204.
    (d) Projects not included in the federally approved STIP shall not 
be eligible for funding with title 23 or title 49, U.S.C., funds.
    (e) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, priority shall be given 
to the timely implementation of TCMs contained in the applicable SIP in 
accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 
and 93.


Sec. 1410.334  Federal certifications.

    (a) The State and the MPO shall annually self-certify to the FHWA 
and the FTA that the planning process is addressing the major issues 
facing the area and is being conducted in accordance with all 
applicable requirements of:
    (1) 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306;
    (2) Sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act (42 
U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d));
    (3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Title VI 
assurance executed by each State under 23 U.S.C. 324 and 29 U.S.C. 794;
    (4) Section 1003(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240, 105 stat. 1914) regarding 
the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in the FHWA and 
the FTA funded planning projects (sec. 105(f), Public Law 97-424, 96 
Stat. 2100; 49 CFR part 23);
    (5) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et 
seq.) and U.S. DOT regulations ``Transportation for Individuals with 
Disabilities'' (49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38);
    (6) Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); and
    (7) The provisions of 49 CFR part 20 regarding restrictions on 
influencing certain Federal activities.
    (8) All other applicable provisions of Federal law.
    (b) The FHWA and the FTA jointly will review and evaluate the 
transportation planning process for each TMA (as appropriate but no 
less than once every three years) to determine if the process meets the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (c) In TMAs that are nonattainment or maintenance areas for 
transportation related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA will also 
review and evaluate the transportation planning process to assure that 
the MPO has an adequate process to ensure conformity of plans and 
programs in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
    (d) Upon the review and evaluation conducted under paragraphs (b) 
and (c) of this section, the FHWA and the FTA shall take one of the 
following actions, as indicated:
    (1) Where the process meets the requirements of this part, jointly 
certify the transportation planning process;
    (2) Where the process substantially meets the requirements of this 
part, jointly certify the transportation planning process subject to 
certain specified corrective actions being taken; or
    (3) Where the process does not meet the requirements of this part, 
jointly certify the planning process as the basis for approval of only 
those categories of programs or projects that the Administrators may 
jointly determine and subject to certain specified corrective actions 
being taken.
    (e) A certification action under this section will remain in effect 
for three years unless a new certification determination is made sooner 
or a shorter term is specified in the certification report.
    (f) If, upon the review and evaluation conducted under paragraph 
(b) or (c) of this section, the FHWA and the FTA jointly determine that 
the transportation planning process in a TMA does not substantially 
meet the requirements, they may take the following action as 
appropriate:
    (1) Withhold up to twenty percent of the apportionment attributed 
to the relevant metropolitan planning area under 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3), 
capital funds apportioned under 49 U.S.C. 5307-5309; or
    (2) Withhold approval of all or certain categories of projects.
    (g) In conducting a certification review, the FHWA and the FTA 
shall make provision, relying on the local public involvement processes 
and supplemented with other involvement strategies as appropriate, to 
engage the public in the review process. The FHWA and the FTA shall 
consider the public input received in arriving at a decision on a 
certification action.
    (h) The State and the MPO shall be notified of the actions taken 
under paragraph (f) of this section. Upon full, joint certification by 
the FHWA and the FTA, all funds withheld will be restored to the 
metropolitan area, unless the funds have lapsed.

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Chapter VI

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Transit 
Administration proposes to amend Chapter VI of title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 613--[REMOVED]

    3. Remove part 613.
    4. Add part 621 to read as follows:

PART 621--METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE PLANNING

Subpart A--Planning

Sec.
621.100   Definitions.
Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and programming
621.200   Statewide transportation planning and programming.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
621.300   Metropolitan transportation planning and programming.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 
U.S.C. 5303-5309; 49 CFR .151.

Subpart A--Planning


Sec. 621.100  Definitions.

    The regulations in 23 CFR 1410, subpart A, shall be followed in 
complying with the requirements of this subpart.

Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and programming


Sec. 621.200  Statewide transportation planning and programming.

    The regulations in 23 CFR 1410 subpart B, shall be followed in 
complying with the requirements of this subpart.

Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming


Sec. 621.300  Metropolitan transportation planning and programming

    The regulations in 23 CFR part 1410, subpart C, shall be followed 
in complying with the requirements of this subpart.

    Issued on: May 18, 2000.
Vincent F. Schimmoller,
Acting Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration.
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-13021 Filed 5-19-00; 1:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-MR-P