[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