[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41648-41653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15280]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 450
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-5933]
FHWA RIN 2125-AE95; FTA RIN 2132-AA75
Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation
Planning
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As a result of recent congressional direction regarding
consultation with non-metropolitan local officials in transportation
planning, and based on the comments the FHWA and the FTA received to
the May 25, 2000, Planning NPRM, and the congressional hearings on the
NPRM, we are proposing another option on non-metropolitan local
official consultation in addition to that proposed in the May 2000
Planning NPRM. This proposal would revise the current statewide
planning regulation at 23 CFR 450. Specifically, this SNPRM proposes to
closely follow the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), but allows State flexibility to determine who are non-metropolitan
local officials and how to consult with them. Consequently, we are
soliciting public comment on an additional proposal to incorporate
[[Page 41649]]
consultation with non-metropolitan local officials into our current
planning regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments should include the docket number
that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received
will be available for examination and copying at the above address from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page
that appears after submitting comments electronically.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the FHWA: Mr. Dee Spann, Statewide
Planning Team (HEPS), (202) 366-4086 or Mr. Reid Alsop, Office of the
Chief Counsel (HCC-31), (202) 366-1371. For the FTA: Mr. Paul
Verchinski, Statewide Planning Division (TPL-11) 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 20590-0001. 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 and Filing
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document
Management System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions
6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information
Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and
WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day,
365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help section of the web site.
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 also 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.
Background
Section 1025 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, (December 18,
1991), amended title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 135 and
established a requirement for Statewide Transportation Planning and
stated, ``The transportation needs of non-metropolitan areas should be
considered through a process that includes consultation with local
elected officials with jurisdiction over transportation.'' The ISTEA
further stated ``Projects undertaken in areas of less than 50,000
population (excluding projects undertaken on the National Highway
System and pursuant to the bridge and Interstate maintenance programs)
shall be selected by the State in cooperation with the affected local
officials. Projects undertaken in such areas on the National Highway
System or pursuant to the bridge and Interstate maintenance programs
shall be selected by the State in consultation with the affected local
officials.''
Section 1204 of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (June
9, 1998), further amended 23 U.S.C. 135, while preserving the statewide
planning requirement for a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative
planning process. The TEA-21 did not significantly alter the current
decisionmaking relationship among governmental units. This amendment
demonstrates Congress' continued emphasis on State decisionmaking, but
requires States to consult with non-metropolitan local officials in
transportation planning and programming. This consultation with non-
metropolitan local officials in transportation planning and programming
is the specific subject of this SNPRM.
The FHWA and the FTA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) on May 25, 2000 (65 FR 33922), that detailed proposed revisions
to the existing planning regulations issued on October 28, 1993, at 58
FR 58040. The May 2000 Planning NPRM included provisions, different
from those offered herein, regarding consultation with non-metropolitan
local officials. Comments were solicited until August 23, 2000 (later
extended to September 23, 2000, by a July 7, 2000, Federal Register
notice at 65 FR 41891). The docket is still open, and comments to this
SNPRM will be placed in that docket.
Input to Development of the SNPRM
During the comment period on the proposed rule (May 25, 2000,
through September 23, 2000), the FTA and the FHWA held seven public
meetings to present information on the May 2000 Planning NPRM. Although
the attendees were encouraged to submit all comments to the docket,
several raised questions at the meetings. Therefore, a summary of
questions raised at the meetings and the general responses of the FHWA
and the FTA presenters is included in the docket.
A summary of all comments by section of the May 2000 Planning NPRM
has been prepared by the FHWA and the FTA and inserted in the docket.
We have carefully reviewed all comments. Those comments that pertain to
the sections relating to consultation with non-metropolitan local
officials are discussed below.
During the comment period (on September 12 and 13, 2000) the Senate
Environment and Public Works and House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committees held hearings regarding the May 2000 Planning
NPRM. The FHWA and the FTA have reviewed the comments and questions
raised at these hearings.
The House report that accompanied the U.S. DOT Appropriations Act
for fiscal year (FY) 2002, and the conference report for the Department
of Defense FY 02 Appropriations Act, which contained several
transportation issues, included language directing the U.S. DOT to
promulgate a final rule, no later than February 1, 2002, to amend the
FHWA and FTA planning regulations to ensure transportation officials
from rural areas are consulted in long range transportation planning
and programming.
Discussion of Comments on the NPRM Related to Local Official
Consultation
There were over 400 documents (representing just over 300 discrete
comments) submitted to the May 2000 Planning NPRM docket. We received
diverse and opposing comments. The following discussion addresses only
the comments related to consultation with non-metropolitan local
officials.
We received 50 comments on the non-metropolitan local official
participation provisions we proposed in 23 CFR Part 1410. These
comments focused mostly on Sec. 1410.212, ``Participation by interested
parties,'' which we proposed as the primary section on consultation
with non-metropolitan local officials in the May 2000 Planning NPRM.
Seven of the comments were from groups representing a total of 42
separate
[[Page 41650]]
entities, resulting in a total of 85 commenters on this provision.
There were 19 opposing comments, primarily from State DOTs and the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). There were 31 supporting comments, primarily from local
entities (local governments, local officials and regional agencies) and
associations representing local entities, including the National
Association of Counties (NACO) and the National Association of
Development Organizations (NADO).
The AASHTO, representing the State DOTs, commented that the FHWA
and the FTA should clarify that it would not be necessary for States to
obtain the consent of other parties to the consultation procedures for
their State and that the State is the responsible party for
establishing and implementing a consultation process. The NACO and the
NADO, representing local officials, county governments and regional
organizations, supported the language requiring a documented process
for each State which retains the flexibility to tailor a consultation
process to fit local circumstances. Several commenters were concerned
that the proposal would be misinterpreted as creating a ``co-equal''
role in State decisionmaking by local officials and requested this be
clarified.
The FHWA and the FTA have reviewed these comments and have
formulated an alternate option calling for consultation with non-
metropolitan local officials in the statewide planning process. The
option is being proposed as a revision to the current regulation and as
an additional option to that proposed in the May 2000 Planning NPRM. We
welcome comments on this alternate option.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The FHWA and the FTA specifically request comments and ideas on the
non-metropolitan local official consultation language proposed in this
SNPRM. Comparison assessments with the non-metropolitan local official
consultation language proposed in the May 2000 Planning NPRM are
welcome also. In this SNPRM we are not soliciting comment on the other
features of the May 2000 Planning NPRM, nor are we proposing language
in this SNPRM on any other features of the May 2000 Planning NPRM other
than the section on consultation with non-metropolitan local officials.
The May 2000 Planning NPRM proposed to amend the existing planning
regulation, 23 CFR part 450, by replacing it with a new part 1410.
Consultation with non-metropolitan local officials provisions appeared
in several sections of the May 2000 Planning NPRM: portions of
Secs. 1410.104, 1410.208, 1410.212, 1410.214, 1410.216 and 1410.224.
Although in the May 2000 Planning NPRM we proposed to remove 23 CFR 450
and replace it with 23 CFR 1410, in this SNPRM we are proposing not to
remove 23 CFR 450, but rather, to amend sections of 23 CFR 450 to
include language that addresses consultation with non-metropolitan
local officials. Accordingly, we are proposing amendments to the
provisions of the following sections of the existing planning
regulation: Secs. 450.104, 450.206, 450.212, 450.214, 450.216 and
450.224. We are not proposing amendments to the provisions of
Sec. 450.222 that relate to consultation with non-metropolitan local
officials. The primary section on consultation with non-metropolitan
local officials is proposed as Sec. 450.212(h). This section-by-section
analysis only addresses those sections that cover consultation with
non-metropolitan local officials.
Section 450.104
Based on comments received on the May 2000 Planning NPRM, in this
SNPRM we propose new definitions of ``consultation'' and ``non-
metropolitan area.''
More than twenty discrete comments were received on the proposed
definition of consultation; some were opposed and some were supportive.
The FTA and the FHWA now propose a definition of ``consultation'' that
is more consistent with the legislative language. The proposed
definition eliminates the reference to a process and focuses on keeping
other parties informed.
In the May 2000 Planning NPRM we proposed adding the definition of
a ``non-metropolitan local official.'' In this SNPRM, we are proposing
to add the definition of ``non-metropolitan area.'' The definition we
propose of a ``non-metropolitan area'' recognizes that there are a
variety of local officials that serve non-metropolitan areas `` this
could include local elected officials, local officials with
responsibility for transportation, officials of general purpose local
government, officials associated with Federal lands managing agencies,
and possibly tribal officials. This definition focuses on specifying
the geographic area served by non-metropolitan officials to distinguish
them from local officials representing metropolitan areas who are
involved through the metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
The FHWA and the FTA do not propose to change the definition of
``cooperation'' and ``coordination,'' because common practice has
revealed no issues with the meaning of these terms.
Section 450.206
This section of the existing regulation deals with the general
requirements of the statewide transportation planning process. The TEA-
21 clearly emphasizes the importance of recognizing non-metropolitan
transportation issues and consulting with non-metropolitan local
officials. The FHWA and the FTA propose revising Sec. 450.206(b) and
adding a new Sec. 450.206(c) to clarify that effective consideration of
non-metropolitan transportation issues and concerns and involvement of
non-metropolitan local officials can be enhanced by coordinating
statewide transportation planning with related planning in non-
metropolitan areas.
Section 450.212
We received over 150 comments on the May 2000 Planning NPRM
Sec. 1410.212, Participation by Interested Parties. The proposed
Sec. 1410.212 of the May 2000 Planning NPRM was proposed to replace
Sec. 450.212 of the current planning regulation. The majority of these
comments focused on consultation with non-metropolitan local officials.
In addition to the comments submitted to the docket, the FHWA and the
FTA used information from other activities, including the FHWA-FTA
study on participation of non-metropolitan local officials required by
the TEA-21 and ten rural listening sessions held throughout the country
to develop the SNPRM.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The study on the non-metropolitan local officials report is
currently being reviewed within DOT; however, two of the study
products (Rural Transportation Consultation Processes, May 2000, and
Rural Transportation Consultation Processes; State by State
Summaries, April 2001) are available at the following URL: http://www.napawash.org. A summary of each of the ten rural workshops held
in 1998-99 (Rural Transportation Planning Workshops, Summary 1999)
is available at the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/state/rural.html. The reports mentioned in this footnote are also in
the May 2000 Planning NPRM docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to revise the provisions of Sec. 450.212 to reflect more
closely the language of the legislation concerning consultation with
non-metropolitan local officials and the comments received to date in
the docket. The language we propose focuses on the intended result of
the process to be ``effective participation'' of local officials in
statewide transportation planning. Because the statutory
[[Page 41651]]
language refers to a variety of types of local officials, our proposal
does not specify whether they must be elected officials or non-elected
officials. Rather, we propose State flexibility for determination of
which local officials should be most appropriately involved in their
State's statewide transportation planning process.
Section 450.214
The TEA-21 specifically states ``with respect to each non-
metropolitan area, the long-range transportation plan shall be
developed in consultation with affected local officials with
responsibility for transportation,'' now codified at 23 U.S.C.
135(e)(2)(B). Therefore, the FHWA and the FTA propose adding
Sec. 450.214(f) to reflect the intent of the statute by proposing
language that requires affected local officials with responsibility for
transportation to be involved on a consultation basis in developing the
statewide transportation plan as it relates to the non-metropolitan
areas of the State.
Section 450.216
The TEA-21 specifically states ``with respect to each non-
metropolitan area in the State, the program shall be developed in
consultation with affected local officials with responsibility for
transportation,'' now codified at 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(1)(B)(ii)(I).
Therefore, the FHWA and the FTA propose adding Sec. 450.216(e) to
reflect the intent of the statute by proposing language that requires
affected local officials with responsibility for transportation to be
involved on a consultation basis in developing the statewide
transportation improvement program as it relates to the non-
metropolitan areas of the State.
Section 450.224
This SNPRM proposes a six-month phase-in period (to end six months
after the effective date of a final rule, if we decide to issue a final
rule). After this period, the consultation aspects of the statewide
transportation planning process will be emphasized as we assess the
planning process and make the Federal planning finding required in 23
CFR 450.220(b) and 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(4). We considered a longer phase-in
period, but decided not to propose it since the statutory language has
been in effect for almost four years and this proposal mirrors
statutory language.
There is one other section in the existing regulation with language
related to consultation with non-metropolitan local officials, 23 CFR
450.222 ``Project selection for implementation.'' However, the FHWA and
the FTA do not propose to modify that section in this SNPRM.
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, but the agencies may issue a
final rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In
addition to late comments, the FHWA and the FTA will also 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 and Procedures
This rulemaking is an alternative option to the agencies' May 2000
Planning NPRM proposing to amend the agencies' planning regulations
regarding the consultation with non-metropolitan local officials. The
FHWA and the FTA have determined preliminarily that this action would
be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation regulatory policies
and procedures, because the proposed action concerns a matter on which
there is substantial public interest. The agencies anticipate that the
economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. This action
proposes to amend a portion of the current planning regulations for
which substantial financial assistance is provided to the States by
both the FHWA and the FTA to support compliance with the requirements
of the regulation.
These proposed changes would not adversely affect, in a material
way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not
create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or
materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; nor will the proposed amendment of this
regulation raise any novel legal or policy issues. Therefore, a full
regulatory evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 60 1-612), the FHWA and the FTA have evaluated the effects of
this SNPRM on small entities and has determined it would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The modifications proposed in this SNPRM are substantially dictated
by the statutory provisions of the TEA-21 and the agencies believe that
the flexibility available to the States in those provisions has been
maintained. For these reasons, the FHWA and the FTA certify that this
proposed 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 this proposed rule on small
entities and governments.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The FWHA and the FTA have analyzed this proposal under the
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4,
March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48) and believe that this SNPRM would 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.
The requirements of 23 U.S.C. 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 up to twenty
percent of the total cost. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the cost
of complying with these requirements is predominately covered by the
funds they administer. The costs of compliance with the requirements of
the planning program as a whole are eligible for funding; therefore,
this proposal would not create an unfunded mandate.
Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which
State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their
participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the
program by the Federal government. The Federal-aid highway program and
the Transit program permit this type of flexibility to the States.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the agencies have
determined that this action does not raise sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment, and
will not adversely affect the States' ability to discharge traditional
State governmental functions.
[[Page 41652]]
Concern was raised by some States about burdens from the May 2000
Planning NPRM. One of the concerns is the burden resulting from the
requirement for consultation with non-metropolitan local officials. The
TEA-21 requires such consultation. In this SNPRM the FHWA and the FTA
make it clear that already existing consultation procedures could be
used to comply with these requirements.
The agencies further note that the transportation planning
activities required by the planning regulations, as amended by this
proposed rule, are conditions for the receipt of Federal transportation
financial assistance and are reimbursable expenses. Under the
provisions of title 23, U.S.C., the Federal government reimburses at
least 80 percent of the costs to complete required transportation plans
and transportation improvement programs.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction; 20.500 Federal Transit Capital
Improvement Grants; 20.505, Federal Transit Metropolitan Planning
Grants; 20.507, Federal Transit Formula Grants; 20515, State Planning
and Research. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and
activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA and the FTA
have determined that this proposal does not contain collection of
information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).
This proposal would not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this proposal under Executive
Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000. The proposed action will not have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not required. Consultation with tribal
governments is separately referenced in TEA-21 and is not included in
this SNPRM.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. Although this proposal is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, we have determined that
it is not a significant energy action under that order, because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy
Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposal 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 proposal under Executive Order 13045,
protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposal 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 proposal would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Government 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 each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 450
Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Mass
transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued on: June 12, 2002.
Mary E. Peters,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Jennifer L. Dorn,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend title
23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 450, as set forth below:
PART 450--PLANNING ASSISTANCE AND STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 450 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 23 U.S.C. 135, 23 U.S.C. 315, and 49
U.S.C. 5303-06.
2. Amend Sec. 450.104 to revise the definition of ``consultation''
and add a definition for ``non-metropolitan area'' to read as follows:
Sec. 450.104 Definitions.
* * * * *
Consultation means that one party confers with another identified
party and, prior to taking action(s), considers that party's views and
then keeps that party informed about action(s) taken.
* * * * *
Non-metropolitan area means the geographic area outside designated
metropolitan planning areas, as designated under 23 USC Sec. 134 and 49
USC Sec. 5303.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 450.206 to revise paragraph (b) and to add a
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 450.206 Statewide transportation planning process: General
requirements.
* * * * *
(b) The statewide transportation planning process shall be
coordinated with the metropolitan planning process required by subpart
C of this part and with related planning activities being carried out
outside of metropolitan planning areas.
(c) In carrying out statewide transportation planning, the State
shall consider, with respect to non-metropolitan areas, the concerns of
local elected officials representing units of general purpose local
government.
4. Amend Sec. 450.212 by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 450.212 Public involvement.
* * * * *
[[Page 41653]]
(h) The State shall provide for non-metropolitan local official
participation. The State shall have a documented process(es) for
consulting with non-metropolitan local officials representing units of
general purpose local government and/or local officials with
responsibility for transportation that results in their effective
participation in the statewide transportation planning process and
development of the statewide transportation improvement program.
5. Amend Sec. 450.214 by adding a paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 450.214 Statewide transportation plan.
* * * * *
(f) In developing the statewide transportation plan, affected local
officials with responsibility for transportation shall be involved on a
consultation basis for the portions of the plan in non-metropolitan
areas of the State.
6. Amend Sec. 450.216 by adding a paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 450.216 Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).
* * * * *
(e) In developing the statewide transportation improvement program,
affected local officials with responsibility for transportation shall
be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the program in
non-metropolitan areas of the State.
7. Amend Sec. 450.224 by designating the existing text as paragraph
(a) and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 450.224 Phase-in of new requirements.
* * * * *
(b) The State has a period of six months after [30 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] to document and
implement the consultation process discussed in Sec. 450.212(h).
[FR Doc. 02-15280 Filed 6-17-02; 4:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P