[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31784-31841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12155]



[[Page 31783]]

Vol. 79

Monday,

No. 105

June 2, 2014

Part IV





 Department of Transportation





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





Federal Highway Administration





23 CFR Part 450





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





Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 613





Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan 
Transportation Planning; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 31784]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 450

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 613

[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0037; FHWA RIN 2125-AF52; FTA RIN 2132-AB10]


Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; 
Metropolitan Transportation Planning

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA and the FTA are jointly issuing this NPRM to propose 
revisions to the regulations governing the development of metropolitan 
transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas, State 
transportation plans and programs, and the congestion management 
process. The changes reflect recent passage of the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The MAP-21 continues many 
provisions related to transportation planning from prior laws; however, 
it introduces transformational changes and adds some new provisions. 
The proposed rule would make the regulations consistent with current 
statutory requirements and proposes the following: A new mandate for 
State departments of transportation (States) and metropolitan planning 
organizations (MPO) to take a performance-based approach to planning 
and programming; a new emphasis on the nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning process, by requiring States to have a higher level of 
involvement with nonmetropolitan local officials and providing a 
process for the creation of regional transportation planning 
organizations (RTPO); a structural change to the membership of the 
larger MPOs; a new framework for voluntary scenario planning; revisions 
to the integration of the planning and environmental review process; 
and a process for programmatic mitigation plans.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2014. Late-
filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to: Docket Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments 
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this 
document. All comments received will be available for examination and 
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of 
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or 
may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting 
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form 
of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, or labor union). You may review the U.S. 
Department of Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

Electronic Access and Filing

    This document and all comments received may be viewed online 
through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. 
The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An 
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing 
the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: https://www.federalregister.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the FHWA: Mr. Harlan W. Miller, 
Planning Oversight and Stewardship Team (HEPP-10), (202) 366-0847; or 
Ms. Anne Christenson, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-
1356. For the FTA: Ms. Sherry Riklin, Office of Planning and 
Environment, (202) 366-5407; Mr. Dwayne Weeks, Office of Planning and 
Environment, (202) 493-0316; or Mr. Christopher Hall, Office of Chief 
Counsel, (202) 366-5218. Both agencies are located at 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., e.t. for FHWA, and 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., e.t. for FTA, Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Major Proposed Revisions to the Planning Rule
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) transforms the Federal-aid highway 
program and the Federal transit program by requiring a transition to 
performance-driven, outcome-based approaches to key areas. With respect 
to planning, although MAP-21 leaves the basic framework of the planning 
process largely untouched, the statute introduces critical changes to 
the planning process itself by requiring States, MPOs, and providers of 
public transportation to link investment priorities (the transportation 
improvement program of projects) to the achievement of performance 
targets that they would establish to address performance measures in 
the key areas such as safety, infrastructure condition, congestion, 
system reliability, emissions, and freight movement.
    Accordingly, this proposed rule is central to the implementation of 
the overall performance management framework created by MAP-21. 
Additional changes include a new emphasis on nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning, changes to the structure of MPOs that serve a 
transportation management area (TMA), and codification of some existing 
best practices.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question

    As a fundamental element of a performance management framework, 
States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation will need to 
establish targets in key national performance areas to document 
expectations for future performance. This NPRM proposes in 23 CFR 
450.206 and 450.306 that States, MPOs, and providers of public 
transportation coordinate their targets. The MAP-21 requires that MPOs 
reflect those targets in their metropolitan transportation plan and 
encourages States to do the same in their long-range statewide 
transportation plan. Accordingly, this NPRM proposes that MPOs would 
reflect those targets in the metropolitan transportation plans. In 
addition, FHWA and FTA propose that States should reflect the targets 
in their long-range statewide transportation plans. Both States and 
MPOs would describe the anticipated effect toward achieving the targets 
in their respective transportation improvement programs.
    In addition to these proposed changes to the planning provisions, 
MAP-21 contains new performance-related provisions requiring States, 
MPOs, and public transportation providers to

[[Page 31785]]

develop other performance-based plans and processes. This NPRM proposes 
in Sec. Sec.  450.206 and 450.306 that MPOs and States must integrate 
the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets of other 
performance-based plans and processes into their planning processes.
    This proposal also places a new emphasis on the importance of 
nonmetropolitan transportation planning. Proposed Sec. Sec.  450.208 
through 450.210 and 450.216 require the States to work more closely 
with nonmetropolitan areas. Additionally, this NPRM proposes that 
States should have the option of designating RTPOs to help address the 
planning needs of the nonmetropolitan areas of the State.
    The MAP-21 made two changes specific to the metropolitan planning 
process. The first change affects the policy board structure of large 
MPOs. For each MPO serving a TMA, the planning statutes and current 
planning regulations identify a list of government or agency officials 
that must be on that policy board. Consistent with MAP-21, this NPRM 
proposes in Sec.  450.310 to add representation by providers of public 
transportation to this list of officials. The second change proposes in 
Sec.  450.324 of this NPRM that MPOs may use scenario planning, an 
analytical framework to inform decisionmakers about the implications of 
various investments and policies on transportation system condition and 
performance, during the development of their plan. Both of these 
proposed changes will support the effective implementation of a 
performance-based planning process.
    In addition to changing the planning statutes, MAP-21 continues 
efforts to expedite project delivery through better coordination 
between the transportation planning process and the environmental 
review process. Section 1310 of MAP-21 creates an additional process 
for integrating planning and the environmental review activities, but 
also preserves other authorities for integration. Sections 450.212 and 
450.318 of the planning regulations are among those pre-MAP-21 
authorities. Together with implementing regulations for the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 \1\ adopted by the President's Council 
on Environmental Quality \2\ and the FHWA and FTA,\3\ Sec. Sec.  
450.212 and 450.318 have long provided pathways for using 
transportation planning information and decisions in the environmental 
review process. With one exception, FHWA and FTA propose to retain the 
existing regulatory provisions in Sec. Sec.  450.212 and 450.318, as 
well as the guidance in Appendix A. The agencies will address 
implementation of section 1310 of MAP-21 and any needed updates to 
provisions on pre-MAP-21 integration authorities through separate 
rulemaking or guidance. The exception is the proposed deletion of 
paragraph (d) of Sec.  450.318 due to revisions made to 49 U.S.C. 5309 
by MAP-21 (references to mandatory Alternatives Analysis within 
Appendix A are also proposed to be removed consistent with those 
changes). More specifically, MAP-21 removed the requirement for a 
stand-alone alternatives analysis for projects that seek section 
5309(d) or (e) funding. In addition, the proposed new sections 450.214 
and 450.320 would provide guidance on the optional development of 
programmatic mitigation plans for use during the project development 
and environmental review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
    \2\ 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
    \3\ 23 CFR part 771.

     Summary--Key Changes Proposed to the Planning Rule by This NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Key regulatory
       Proposed change             Description           section(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Based Planning    The statewide and     23 CFR 450.206(c),
 and Programming.              metropolitan          23 CFR 450.208(g),
                               transportation        23 CFR 450.216(f),
                               planning processes    23 CFR 450.218(r),
                               shall provide for     23 CFR 450.226, 23
                               the use of a          CFR 450.300(a), 23
                               performance-based     CFR 450.306(a), 23
                               approach to           CFR 450.306(d), 23
                               transportation        CFR 450.314(a), 23
                               decisionmaking to     CFR 450.314(e), 23
                               support the           CFR 450.314(g), 23
                               national goals        CFR 450.324(f)(3),
                               described in 23       23 CFR
                               U.S.C. 150(b) and     450.324(f)(4), 23
                               the general           CFR
                               purposes described    450.324(i)(1)(iii),
                               in 29 U.S.C. 5301.    23 CFR
                               These processes are   450.324(i)(2), 23
                               where                 CFR 450.326(c), 23
                               decisionmaking and    CFR 450.326(d), 23
                               investment            CFR 450.340.
                               priorities would be
                               linked to targets
                               in key areas. See
                               23 U.S.C. 150 and
                               49 U.S.C. 5326 and
                               5329.
New emphasis on the           A State may           23 CFR 450.210(d).
 importance of                 establish and        23 CFR
 nonmetropolitan               designate Regional    450.208(a)(4), 23
 transportation planning.      Transportation        CFR 450.210(b), 23
                               Planning              CFR 450.216(g), 23
                               Organizations         CFR 450.218(c), 23
                               (RTPOs).              CFR 45.222(c).
                              State consultation
                               with
                               nonmetropolitan
                               local officials in
                               the statewide
                               planning process
                               becomes State
                               cooperation with
                               nonmetropolitan
                               local officials or,
                               if appropriate,
                               RTPOs.
Changes specific to the       MPOs that serve an    23 CFR
 metropolitan planning         area designated as    450.310(d)(1)(ii).
 process.                      a TMA shall include  23 CFR 450.324(i).
                               representation by
                               providers of public
                               transportation.
                              MPOs may use
                               scenario planning
                               during the
                               development of
                               their plan.
Programmatic Mitigation.....  States and MPOs may   23 CFR 450.214, 23
                               develop               CFR 450.320.
                               programmatic
                               mitigation plans to
                               address potential
                               environmental
                               impacts of future
                               transportation
                               projects as part of
                               the statewide or
                               metropolitan
                               transportation
                               planning process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Costs and Benefits

    The FHWA and FTA expect that the proposed regulatory changes to the 
planning process would improve decisionmaking through increased 
transparency and accountability and support the national goals 
described in 23 U.S.C. 150(b) and the general purposes described in 49 
U.S.C. 5301. The FHWA and FTA have not been able to find data or 
empirical studies to assist it in monetizing or quantifying the 
benefits of this NPRM. In addition, estimates of the benefits of this 
NPRM would be difficult to develop. The proposed rule would promote 
transparency by requiring the establishment of performance targets in 
key areas, such as safety, infrastructure condition, system 
reliability, emissions,

[[Page 31786]]

and congestion, and by expressly linking investment decisions to the 
achievement of such targets. This would be documented in plans or 
programs developed with public review. The proposal would establish 
accountability through mandating reports on progress toward meeting 
those targets.
    Other elements of the proposal also would improve decisionmaking, 
such as representation by providers of public transportation on each 
MPO that serves a TMA, updating the metropolitan planning agreements, 
requiring States to have a higher level of involvement with 
nonmetropolitan local officials, and providing an optional process for 
the creation of RTPOs.
    The FHWA and FTA estimate the total cost of this proposed rule is 
$30.8 million annually. To implement the proposed changes in support of 
a more efficient, performance-based planning process, FHWA and FTA 
estimate that the aggregate increase in costs attributable to the 
proposed rulemaking for all 52 States \4\ and 420 (estimated) MPOs is 
approximately $28.3 million per year. These costs are primarily 
attributable to an increase in staff time needed to meet the proposed 
requirements. For the estimated 600 total providers of public 
transportation that operate within metropolitan planning areas, the 
cost would be $2.4 million per year in total. The total Federal, State, 
and local cost of the planning program is $1,166,471,400. As the cost 
burden of this rule is estimated to be 2.6 percent of the total 
planning program, FHWA and FTA believe the economic impact of this 
rulemaking would be minimal and the benefits of implementing this 
rulemaking would outweigh the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This number (52 States) includes the 50 States, the District 
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This is consistent with the definition 
of ``States'' in the current and proposed regulations at 23 CFR 
450.104.

                      Summary of Average Annual Regulatory Costs and Burden Hours of Effort
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Average
                                                            Total additional     Non-Federal       additional
                          Entity                                  cost           share (20%)    person hours per
                                                                                                     agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMA MPOs (210)............................................       $18,402,300        $3,680,500             1,800
Non-TMA MPOs (210)........................................         3,909,200           781,800               400
States (52)...............................................         6,075,800         1,215,200              2400
Providers of Public Transportation (600)..................         2,440,000           488,000               100
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................        30,827,300         6,165,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

1. Introduction to the Planning Process

    The Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning program 
and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning program provide funding to 
support cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive (3-C) planning for 
making transportation investment decisions throughout each State--both 
in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Since the 1962 Federal-aid 
Highway Act,\5\ Federal authorizing legislation for expenditure of 
surface transportation funds has required metropolitan and statewide 
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs to be 
developed through a 3-C planning process. Over successive 
reauthorization cycles, including the passage of MAP-21 in July 2012, 
Congress has revised and expanded the requirements for 3-C planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Public Law 87-866, 76 Stat. 1145 (1962).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Process
    States must undertake a 3-C statewide transportation planning 
process to develop a multimodal long-range statewide transportation 
plan and a statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).\6\ The 
long-range statewide transportation plan must provide for the 
development of transportation facilities that function as an intermodal 
State transportation system and must cover at least a 20-year planning 
horizon at the time of adoption by the State. There is not a required 
update cycle for the long-range statewide transportation plan. When 
developing a plan, States need to cooperate with the MPOs in the 
metropolitan areas. In nonmetropolitan areas, States must cooperate 
with local elected officials who have the responsibility for 
transportation. Some States may have regional planning organizations to 
help support the planning process in nonmetropolitan areas. States also 
must provide an opportunity for public comment on the long-range 
statewide transportation plan. As part of public engagement, FHWA and 
FTA encourage States to include minority and low-income populations and 
otherwise incorporate environmental justice principles into the 
statewide and nonmetropolitan planning process and documents as 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 23 U.S.C. 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, States must develop a federally approved STIP at least 
once every 4 years. The STIP contains a 4-year program of projects, and 
must be consistent with the long-range statewide and metropolitan 
transportation plans. The STIP must incorporate the transportation 
improvement programs (TIPs) developed by MPOs either directly or by 
reference without alteration. Finally, the STIP must identify the 
source of funding that is reasonably expected to be available to 
support the program of projects in the STIP. When the State submits the 
STIP to FHWA and FTA for approval, the State must certify that the 
metropolitan and statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning 
processes are in compliance with applicable requirements. The FHWA and 
FTA will approve the STIP if they jointly determine that the STIP 
substantially meets the statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning requirements.
The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process
    Metropolitan transportation planning occurs in urbanized areas with 
a population of 50,000 or greater.\7\ An MPO is the policy board of the 
organization created and designated by the Governor and local officials 
to carry out the metropolitan planning process in an urbanized area. 
The boundary of the metropolitan planning area covered by the MPO 
planning process is established by agreement between the Governor and 
the MPO and, in general, encompasses the current urbanized area

[[Page 31787]]

and the area to be urbanized during a 20-year forecast period. Certain 
urbanized areas--generally those over 200,000 in population--are 
designated as TMAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 23 U.S.C. 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An MPO establishes the investment priorities of Federal 
transportation funds in its metropolitan areas through the metropolitan 
transportation plan and TIP. Each MPO, regardless of size, must prepare 
a metropolitan transportation plan and update it every 4 or 5 years. 
The plan must cover at least a 20-year planning horizon at the time of 
adoption by the MPO. Before it adopts its plan, the MPO must provide a 
reasonable opportunity for public comment on the plan's content. As 
part of public engagement, FHWA and FTA encourage MPOs to include 
minority and low-income populations and otherwise incorporate 
environmental justice principles into the metropolitan planning process 
and documents as appropriate.
    The MPO, in cooperation with the State and providers of public 
transportation, must also develop a TIP. The TIP is a prioritized 
listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of 4 
years, and must include a financial plan that describes the source of 
funding that would be reasonably expected to be available to support 
the projects in the TIP. The MPO must update and approve the TIP at 
least once every 4 years. Prior to approving the TIP, the MPO must 
provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment on the TIP. The TIP 
also is subject to approval by the Governor. When the MPO submits the 
TIP to the State, the MPO must certify that the metropolitan 
transportation planning process is in compliance with applicable 
requirements.
    In the TMAs, the metropolitan transportation planning process also 
must include a congestion management process (CMP).\8\ The CMP provides 
for the effective management of new and existing transportation 
facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational 
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA and FTA must certify the transportation planning process 
in TMAs at least once every 4 years. During that certification process, 
FHWA and FTA will review whether the process complies with the 
metropolitan transportation planning requirements, including the new 
MAP-21 requirements.

2. What Does MAP-21 Do?

    The MAP-21 leaves the basic framework of the planning process, as 
described above, largely untouched. However, MAP-21 introduces 
transformational changes to the planning process to increase 
transparency and accountability.\9\ Most significantly, States and MPOs 
now must take a performance-based approach to planning and programming, 
linking investment decisionmaking to the achievement of performance 
targets.\10\ Along with its emphasis on performance-based planning and 
programming, MAP-21 emphasizes the nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning process by requiring States to have a higher level of 
involvement with nonmetropolitan local officials and providing for the 
optional creation of RTPOs. The MAP-21 also makes some structural 
changes to the membership of the MPOs that serve a TMA. Finally, MAP-21 
includes voluntary provisions related to scenario planning and 
developing programmatic mitigation plans. Many of these non-performance 
management changes codify existing best planning practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ MAP-21 sections 1201 and 1202 revising 23 U.S.C. 134 and 
135; MAP-21 sections 20005 and 20006 revising 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 
5304.
    \10\ By October 1, 2017, the Secretary of Transportation must 
submit to Congress a report evaluating the overall effectiveness of 
performance-based planning and the effectiveness of the performance-
based planning process of each State and MPO. In addition, the 
Secretary will be required to report on the extent to which the MPOs 
have achieved the performance targets. 23 U.S.C. 134(l) and 
135(h)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(l) and 5304(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Stakeholder Engagement

    Beginning in 2009, FHWA and FTA initiated a series of peer 
exchanges, conferences, and workshops to develop a framework for 
performance-based planning and programming. These sessions explored how 
States, MPOs, regional planning organizations, and providers of public 
transportation were implementing performance-based planning and 
programming, both individually and in concert with their planning 
partners and stakeholders. During FHWA's and FTA's outreach efforts, 
the States and MPOs emphasized the need to integrate performance-based 
planning and programming into the existing, long-standing planning 
processes, and to avoid creating a separate or distinct process for 
performance-based planning.
    After the passage of MAP-21, FHWA and FTA continued to engage 
stakeholders to discuss how FHWA and FTA could best implement the 
various MAP-21 changes to the planning process. This outreach included 
ongoing workshops on performance-based planning and programming, 
general and topic-based Webinars, an online dialogue, and participation 
at stakeholder meetings and conferences. The FHWA and FTA hosted 
Webinars on the planning provisions of MAP-21, as well as specific 
topics such as performance-based planning and programming. Participants 
in the Webinars included States, MPOs, and providers of public 
transportation.
    The FTA also conducted an online dialogue on the topic of TMA MPO 
structure and the new MAP-21 requirement to include representation by 
providers of public transportation in that structure. Issues raised in 
the dialogue included voting representation and determining the process 
for inclusion of providers of public transportation on MPOs. A 
transcript from this online dialogue is included with the docket for 
this NPRM.
    A list of the various stakeholder outreach initiatives, including 
any notes, meeting minutes, or recordings taken during the outreach, 
and comments received prior to publication, if any, are included in the 
docket for this NPRM. External stakeholders frequently commented on the 
need for flexibility and simplicity in implementing MAP-21 requirements 
given the varying size, capabilities, and operating environments of 
States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation. Stakeholders also 
expressed concerns regarding potential difficulties, uncertainties, and 
risks associated with implementing new provisions such as performance-
based planning and programming.

III. Major Proposed Revisions to the Planning Rule

A. Performance-Based Planning and Programming

    The MAP-21 transforms the Federal-aid highway program and the 
Federal transit program by requiring a transition to a performance-
driven, outcome-based program that provides for a greater level of 
transparency and accountability, improved project decisionmaking, and 
more efficient investment of Federal transportation funds.\11\ As part 
of this new performance-based approach, recipients of Federal-aid 
highway program funds and Federal transit funds would be required to 
link the investment priorities contained in the STIP and TIP to 
achieving performance targets. This proposed rule is one of several 
proposed rules that would establish the basic elements of a performance 
driven, outcome-based program. This proposed rule is

[[Page 31788]]

important to the FHWA's and FTA's overall implementation of the 
performance management provisions of MAP-21 because the planning 
process brings all of the elements together by tying performance to 
investment decisionmaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. 150(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several MAP-21 provisions administered by FHWA and FTA focus on the 
achievement of performance outcomes. In implementing these provisions, 
FHWA and FTA are undertaking a number of separate but related 
rulemakings. This NPRM addresses the metropolitan transportation 
planning and statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning 
provisions of MAP-21. Additional FHWA and FTA performance-related rules 
include: Federal-aid Highway Performance Measure Rules [RIN 2125-AF49, 
2125-AF53, 2125-AF54], updates to the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program Regulations [RIN 2125-AF56], Federal-aid Highway Risk-Based 
Asset Management Plan Rule for the National Highway System (NHS) [RIN 
2125-AF57], Transit Asset Management Rule [RIN 2132-AB07], and National 
and Public Transportation Safety Plans Rule [RIN 2132-AB20].\12\ \13\ A 
more detailed discussion of these related rulemakings is included in 
FHWA's first proposed Federal-aid Highway Performance Measure Rule, 
which is available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The FTA anticipates publishing a consolidated Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will present the two transit 
rules under RIN 2132-AB20.
    \13\ Another performance-related rule issued by the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration is the Uniform Procedures for 
State Highway Safety Grant Programs, Interim Final Rule, 78 FR 4986 
(January 23, 2013) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 1200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These performance-related rules for the various FHWA and FTA 
programs will implement the basic elements of a performance management 
framework, such as establishment of performance measures and targets 
and reporting requirements. The planning process brings these elements 
together--it is where States, MPOs, and providers of public 
transportation will link decisionmaking and investment priorities to 
performance targets in key areas.\14\ The FHWA and FTA will establish 
national performance measures in key areas, including safety, 
infrastructure condition, congestion, system reliability, emissions, 
and freight movement.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In addition to establishing targets related to the 
performance measures identified in Title 23 and Chapter 53 of Title 
49, States and MPOs may establish targets related to locally created 
measures.
    \15\ See 23 U.S.C. 150(b) and 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The performance management framework requires States, MPOs, and 
providers of public transportation to use these measures to establish 
targets in these key national performance areas to document 
expectations for future performance.\16\ The proposed regulatory 
changes in Sec. Sec.  450.206 and 450.306 mandate States and MPOs, 
respectively, to coordinate their targets with each other to ensure 
consistency, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, for 
transit-related targets, States and MPOs would need to coordinate their 
targets relating to safety and state of good repair with providers of 
public transportation to ensure consistency with other performance-
based provisions applicable to transit providers, to the maximum extent 
practicable. This coordination through the planning process should help 
align MPO and State decisionmaking and advance performance outcomes for 
the States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2), 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2), 49 U.S.C. 
5303(h)(2), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTA and FHWA request public comment on the following questions 
relating to target-setting: What obstacles do States, MPO and transit 
providers foresee to the coordination among them that is necessary in 
order to establish targets? What mechanisms currently exist or could be 
created to facilitate coordination? What role should FHWA and FTA play 
in assisting States, MPOs and transit providers in complying with these 
new target-setting requirements? What mechanisms exist or could be 
created to share data effectively amongst States, MPOs and transit 
providers? For those States, MPOs and transit providers that already 
utilize some type of performance management framework, are there best 
practices that they can share?
    Once performance targets are selected, MAP-21 requires that MPOs 
reflect those targets in their metropolitan transportation plans and 
encourages States to do the same. Accordingly, this NPRM proposes \17\ 
that, in their transportation plans, MPOs would need to describe these 
performance targets, evaluate the condition and performance of the 
transportation system, and report on progress toward the achievement of 
their performance targets.\18\ In addition, States should include 
similar information in their transportation plans.\19\ Importantly, as 
part of the State and MPO program of projects (the STIPs and TIPs, 
respectively), the States and MPOs would need to describe, to the 
maximum extent practicable, the anticipated effect of the investment 
priorities (or their program of transportation improvement projects) 
toward achieving the performance targets.\20\ As the long-range plans, 
STIPs, and TIPs direct investment priorities, it is critical to ensure 
that performance targets are considered during the development of these 
documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  450.216, 450.218, 450.324 and 
450.326.
    \18\ See 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2).
    \19\ 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(7) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(7).
    \20\ See 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D), 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4), 49 U.S.C. 
5303(j)(2)(D), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MAP-21 performance-related provisions also require States, 
MPOs, and public transportation providers to develop other performance-
based plans and processes or impose new requirements on existing 
performance-based plans and processes. These performance-based plans 
and processes include the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
Improvement (CMAQ) Program performance plan,\21\ the strategic highway 
safety plan,\22\ the public transportation agency safety plan,\23\ the 
highway and transit asset management plans,\24\ and, optionally, a 
State freight plan.\25\ This NPRM proposes in Sec. Sec.  450.206 and 
450.306 that MPOs and States integrate the goals, objectives, 
performance measures, and targets of these other performance plans and 
processes into their planning process.\26\ This integration would help 
ensure that key performance elements of these other performance plans 
are considered as part of the investment decisionmaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 23 U.S.C. 149.
    \22\ See 23 U.S.C. 130 and 148.
    \23\ See 49 U.S.C. 5329.
    \24\ See 23 U.S.C. 119 and 49 U.S.C. 5326.
    \25\ See MAP-21 Section 1118.
    \26\ See 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(D), 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(C), 49 
U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(D), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The metropolitan planning agreement helps facilitate the working 
relationship among MPOs, States, and providers of public 
transportation. In this NPRM, FHWA and FTA propose to amend Sec.  
450.314 to require that MPOs include a description in their 
metropolitan planning agreements that identifies how the parties would 
cooperatively implement these performance-based planning provisions. 
The amended metropolitan planning agreements would identify the 
coordinated processes for the collection of performance data, the 
selection of performance targets for the metropolitan area, the 
reporting of metropolitan area targets, and the reporting of actual 
system performance related to those targets. The agreements would also 
describe the roles and responsibilities

[[Page 31789]]

for the collection of data for the NHS. Including this description is 
critical because of the new requirements for a State asset management 
plan for the NHS and establishment of performance measures and 
targets.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Federal-aid Highway Risk-Based Asset Management Plan Rule 
for the National Highway System (NHS) [RIN 2125-AF57].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA and FTA seek public comment on how regional planning 
coordination can be further improved in situations where multiple MPOs 
serve one or several adjacent urbanized areas. Additionally, FHWA and 
FTA seek public comment on additional mechanisms that could be created 
to improve regional coordination in situations where there may be 
multiple MPOs serving a common urbanized area or adjacent urbanized 
areas.

B. New Emphasis on Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning

    As indicated by the change in the title to the statutory section, 
MAP-21 places a new emphasis on the importance of nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning. The MAP-21 requires the States to work more 
closely with nonmetropolitan areas. It also gives States the 
opportunity to designate RTPOs to help address the planning needs of 
the nonmetropolitan area of the State.
    Prior to MAP-21, when developing the long-range statewide 
transportation plan and the STIP, the State was required to consult 
with nonmetropolitan local officials, which meant that the State would 
confer with nonmetropolitan local officials and consider their 
views.\28\ Under MAP-21 and these proposed regulations, States retain 
decisionmaking authority, but would be required to cooperate with 
nonmetropolitan local officials, which means that they would be 
required to work together to achieve a common outcome.\29\ Changing 
from ``consultation'' to ``cooperation'' means States would need to 
work more closely with nonmetropolitan local officials in the 
development of the long-range statewide transportation plan and the 
STIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 23 CFR 450.104.
    \29\ See 23 CFR 450.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support States' efforts to cooperate with nonmetropolitan areas, 
MAP-21 provides a more formal framework for States to optionally 
designate and establish RTPOs.\30\ States have long had the option of 
establishing regional planning organizations to conduct transportation 
planning in nonmetropolitan areas, and several States have successfully 
done so. The MAP-21 codifies this best practice by formally providing 
for RTPOs. This NPRM proposes in Sec.  450.210 that States may 
designate and establish RTPOs, and that the duties of the RTPO include 
the development and maintenance of regional long-range multimodal 
transportation plans and regional TIPs and fostering the coordination 
of local planning. These regional plans and programs, along with public 
involvement, would assist the State in development of the long-range 
statewide transportation plan and the STIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 23 U.S.C. 135(m) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Additions to the Metropolitan Planning Process

    The MAP-21 made two changes specific to the metropolitan planning 
process--one change affects the policy board structure of large MPOs, 
and the second establishes a process for scenario planning. Both of 
these changes would support the effective implementation of a 
performance-based planning process.
    First, for each MPO serving a TMA, the planning statutes and 
current planning regulations identify a list of government or agency 
officials that must be on that policy board, including local elected 
officials, administrators or operators of major modes of 
transportation, and appropriate State officials. The MAP-21 
specifically identifies in this list \31\ representatives of providers 
of public transportation. This proposal would add representatives of 
providers of public transportation to the list of officials in Sec.  
450.310. This NPRM proposes that representatives of providers of public 
transportation would have equal decisionmaking rights and authorities 
as other officials who are on the policy board of an MPO that serves a 
TMA. It is up to the MPO, in cooperation with providers of public 
transportation, to determine how this representation will be structured 
and established. The MPOs can restructure to meet this requirement 
without being redesignated by the Governor and local officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 23 U.S.C. 134(d) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Including public transportation representation on each MPO serving 
a TMA supports the new performance requirements for providers of public 
transportation, including the coordination of MPO targets with 
providers of public transportation, the coordination of public 
transportation provider targets with MPOs, and the integration of 
public transportation performance plans into the metropolitan 
transportation planning process.
    Second, this NPRM proposes in Sec.  450.324 that MPOs may use 
scenario planning during the development of their metropolitan 
transportation plans.\32\ Scenario planning is currently used by many 
MPOs as part of their transportation planning process, and FHWA and FTA 
consider it a best practice.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4).
    \33\ FHWA and FTA have developed resources on scenario planning 
such as case studies and a Guidebook that are available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scenario_and_visualization/scenario_planning. DOT has incorporated climate change scenarios, 
sustainability, and resilience into best practices documents DOT 
shares with the States and MPOs. Examples include the Cape Cod and 
the New Mexico climate scenario planning projects case studies that 
are available at: www.volpe.dot.gov/interagencypilotproject.html and 
www.volpe.dot.gov/nmscenarioplanning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Scenario planning is an analytical framework that evaluates the 
effects of alternative policies, plans and/or programs on the future of 
a community or region. Scenario planning informs decision makers and 
the public on the potential implications of various transportation 
system investments and performance. Scenario planning may consider 
potential regional investment strategies, distribution of population 
and employment, land use, future climate scenarios, system performance 
measures including locally developed measures, and the relationship 
between investments and local priorities. A defining characteristic of 
successful scenario planning is that it actively involves the public, 
the business community, and elected officials on a broad scale, 
educating them about, and incorporating their values and feedback into 
future plans.
    The FHWA's and FTA's proposal encourages MPOs to use scenario 
planning during development of the transportation plan. If used, it 
should include an analysis of how the preferred scenario maintains or 
improves transportation system condition and performance. Use of 
scenario planning can improve the effectiveness of a performance 
management approach because it allows decisionmakers to understand 
alternative approaches to achieving their performance targets and 
optimize the use of limited transportation funds.

D. Programmatic Mitigation

    In addition to revising the planning statutes, MAP-21 provides an 
array of provisions designed to increase innovation and improve 
efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in the planning, design, 
engineering, construction, and financing of transportation projects. 
These provisions continue efforts to expedite project delivery through 
better

[[Page 31790]]

coordination between the transportation planning process and the 
environmental review process pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MAP-21 creates a new statutory framework for the optional 
development of programmatic mitigation plans as part of the planning 
process for use during the environmental review process.\35\ Use of 
these plans can expedite project development because the plans provide 
opportunities for early consideration of environmental resources at a 
statewide, regional, or corridor level and identify options for 
mitigating impacts to environmental resources. Prior to the passage of 
MAP-21, States and MPOs could develop programmatic environmental 
mitigation plans as part of the statewide metropolitan transportation 
planning processes.\36\ These new provisions would create a regulatory 
framework for States' and MPOs' possible development of programmatic 
environmental plans, including the scope, contents, and process for 
developing these plans. The proposed new Sec. Sec.  450.214 and 450.320 
would provide guidance on the use of the programmatic mitigation plan 
during the project development and environmental review process, as 
described more fully in the section-by-section discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 23 U.S.C. 169 (MAP-21 Section 1311).
    \36\ See23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(D) and 135(f)(4); 49 U.S.C. 
5303(i)(2)(B) and 5304(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion

    The FHWA and FTA have drafted the section-by-section discussion for 
the statewide and nonmetropolitan planning sections and the 
metropolitan planning sections so those sections are self-contained 
sections. Although this approach may seem repetitive, it will enable 
stakeholders to review the sections that are relevant to them while 
minimizing references to other sections.
    Sections or paragraphs that would be unchanged under this proposal 
or where the only changes would be in numbering are not identified in 
this discussion. In addition, references to the statewide 
transportation improvement program, metropolitan planning 
organizations, the Clean Air Act, and others may have been changed to 
the appropriate acronym. Minor and nonsubstantive changes in 
capitalizations, changing certain numbers from words to numerals, 
changes to citation format and order, adding statutory citations to 
some Clean Air Act references, updates to renumbered cross-references 
to other sections within part 450, updates to statutory references, and 
changes from ``USDOT'' to ``DOT'' have also been made throughout the 
proposed regulations without further discussion. In addition, some 
minor, nonsubstantive grammatical changes were made to provide clarity, 
including several changes throughout the regulatory text from the 
passive voice to the active voice without changing the meaning. The 
docket contains a redline version of the regulatory text showing the 
differences between the existing regulatory text for 23 CFR part 450 
and the proposed regulatory text.

Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions

Section 450.104 Definitions
    Existing Sec.  450.104 would be retained, with proposed changes to 
terms and definitions, as follows.
    ``Alternatives analysis'' would be removed consistent with MAP-21 
changes to FTA's Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grant Program (49 
U.S.C. 5309), which eliminated the requirement to undertake an 
alternatives analysis.
    ``Amendment'' would be updated to more accurately reflect the 
relationship of the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity 
requirements to the planning process, specifically, to clarify that a 
conformity determination is not a criterion for determining the need 
for an amendment in nonattainment and maintenance areas. In addition, 
the phrase ``changing the number of stations in the case of fixed 
guideway transit projects'' would be added to the list of examples of 
major changes in design concept or design scope.
    ``Asset management'' would be a new definition that would be 
identical to the definition in MAP-21 Section 1103 (23 U.S.C. 
101(a)(2)).
    ``Committed funds'' would be updated to reflect changes to FTA 
terminology resulting from MAP-21 Section 20008 (49 U.S.C. 5309(h)(7)). 
Specifically, ``Project Grant Agreement'' would become ``Expedited 
Grant Agreement.''
    ``Conformity'' would be changed to add ``subpart A'' after the 
reference to ``40 CFR part 93'' to be more specific regarding the 
citation for the transportation conformity regulations. In addition, 
``transportation conformity rule'' would be changed to ``transportation 
conformity regulations'' for clarity. Both of these changes are made 
throughout the proposed regulatory text where appropriate; please see 
the redline version of the regulatory text included in the docket for 
all instances. The phrase ``or any required interim emission reductions 
or other milestones in any area'' is added to the end of the second 
sentence of the definition to conform with the language in section 
176(c)(1)(A)(iii) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq.).
    ``Congestion management process'' would be changed to add the 
phrase ``travel demand reduction and'' as part of the definition to 
make it consistent with the long-standing statutory definition in 23 
U.S.C. 134(k)(3)(A).
    ``Consideration'' would be updated to include the word 
``consequences'' as an item to take into account.
    ``Designated recipient'' would be updated to conform to the 
statutory definition, now in 49 U.S.C. 5302(4)(B)--``State regional 
authority'' would be changed to ``State or regional authority.'' 
Changes resulting from MAP-21 would include: deleting reference to 49 
U.S.C. 5306, changing ``chief executive officer'' to Governor, and 
replacing ``transportation management areas (TMAs) identified under 49 
U.S.C. 5303'' with ``urbanized areas of 200,000 or more in 
population.'' See 49 U.S.C. 5302(4)(A).
    ``Environmental mitigation activities'' would be updated to provide 
a more readable, streamlined definition for environmental mitigation 
activities without changing the substance of the definition. The 
proposed definition would remove reference to ``activities'' in the 
list of activities because it is duplicative. It would remove the 
phrase ``compensate for (by replacing or providing substitute 
resources)'' and replace it with ``rectify, reduce, or eliminate'' 
because any compensation would typically occur in project development, 
not in planning. It would remove the phrase ``or disruption of 
elements'' of the plan because it is unnecessary. It changes ``human 
and natural environment'' to ``environmental resources'' because it is 
more specific to state that environmental mitigation would address 
avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to specific environmental 
impacts during planning. It also would remove the last two sentences of 
the definition, which further expound on the definition of human and 
natural environment, and describe the regional nature of environmental 
mitigation activities. These sentences were removed because FHWA and 
FTA did not want States and MPOs to limit mitigation under 
consideration to only the listed examples as there might be other areas 
where mitigation could be considered.
    ``Expedited Grant Agreement (EGA)'' would be a new definition added 
to

[[Page 31791]]

reflect a new term used in MAP-21. An EGA means a contract that defines 
the scope, the Federal financial contribution, and other terms and 
conditions of a Small Starts project, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 
5309(h)(7).
    ``Freight shippers'' would be revised to broaden the definition to 
include any entity that routinely transports cargo from one location to 
another by providers of freight transportation services or by their own 
operations, involving one or more travel modes. The FHWA and FTA 
believe the existing definition is too narrow because it is limited to 
``any business that routinely transports its products from one location 
to another.'' The proposed revised definition for ``freight shippers'' 
would be expanded to mean ``any entity that routinely transports cargo 
from one location to another.'' The term ``entity'' would be used in 
the revised definition to mean any entity that is shipping cargo, and 
it would replace the term ``business,'' which was used in the old 
definition, because it is too limited. The term ``products'' as used in 
the existing definition would be changed to ``cargo'' because 
``products'' is limited to ``products'' resulting from ``business'' 
while ``cargo'' more widely considers movement of other goods in 
addition to ``products.'' ``Vehicle fleet'' would be changed to 
``involving one or more travel modes'' to reflect the fact that that 
there may be more than one travel mode involved in shipping freight 
(e.g., freight movement between trucks and rail at an intermodal 
facility).
    ``Highway Safety Improvement Program'' (HSIP) would be a new 
definition. As discussed in the major revisions discussion above, MAP-
21's shift to performance-based approach to transportation planning 
includes several elements. One of those elements is the requirement to 
integrate the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets from 
other performance-based plans and processes into the statewide and 
metropolitan transportation planning processes. The HSIP would be one 
of those processes. The new definition would be taken from the proposed 
23 CFR 924.3. See the updates to the HSIP regulations [RIN 2125-AF56].
    ``Illustrative project'' would be revised to remove a reference to 
``(but is not required to)'' after the word ``may'' because it is 
redundant.
    ``Local official'' would be added as a new definition because of 
the new emphasis under MAP-21 on nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning. In particular, MAP-21 requires States to work more closely 
with nonmetropolitan local officials. A local official would be defined 
as an elected or appointed official of general-purpose local government 
with responsibility for transportation.
    ``Major modes of transportation'' is a proposed new definition. The 
FHWA and FTA propose to add this definition to help clarify the use of 
the term ``major modes of transportation'' as it relates to the changes 
in structure to each MPO that serves a TMA. Although each MPO that 
serves a TMA will continue to consist of officials, including 
``officials of public agencies that administer or operate major modes 
of transportation in the metropolitan area,'' MAP-21 adds to the end of 
this phrase ``representation by providers of public transportation.'' 
Major modes of transportation would mean those forms of transportation 
administered, managed, owned, or operated by public agencies or 
authorities that provide services to the public for the movement of 
people and goods, or as operated by the private sector on behalf of a 
public, agency-owned facility.
    ``Metropolitan Planning Agreement'' is a proposed new definition 
that would mean a written agreement between the MPO, the State(s), and 
the providers of public transportation serving the metropolitan 
planning area that describes how they will work cooperatively to meet 
their mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan 
transportation planning process, including performance-based planning. 
Even though Metropolitan Planning Agreements are currently provided for 
in Sec.  450.314, FHWA and FTA propose this definition because this 
agreement plays an important role in transitioning to a performance-
driven, outcome-based program by helping to identify how MPOs, States, 
and providers of public transportation would cooperatively implement 
performance-based planning.
    ``Non-metropolitan local officials'' would be revised to change 
``non-metropolitan'' to ``nonmetropolitan.'' This change would be made 
throughout the proposed regulatory text; to see all the instances 
please refer to the redline in the docket as referenced above.
    ``Obligated projects'' would be updated to clarify that funds may 
have been obligated in the preceding program year or the current year.
    ``Performance measures,'' ``performance metrics,'' and 
``performance targets'' would be new definitions added as a result of 
the new performance-based planning provisions in MAP-21, including 
sections 1203, 20019, and 20021 (23 U.S.C. 150 and 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 
5329). These definitions would refer to the definitions developed for 
these terms during the rulemakings to implement the referenced MAP-21 
provisions. See Federal-aid Highway Performance Measure Rules [RIN 
2125-AF49, 2125-AF53, 2125-AF54], Transit Asset Management Rule [RIN 
2132-AB07], and National and Public Transportation Safety Plans Rule 
[RIN 2132-AB20].
    ``Project construction grant agreement'' would be deleted because 
MAP-21 renamed it ``Expedited Grant Agreement'' (which is included as a 
new definition), in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5309(h)(7).
    ``Provider of freight transportation services'' would be modified 
so that ``goods'' is changed to ``cargo'' to be consistent with the 
definition of ``freight shippers.''
    ``Public transportation agency safety plan'' is a proposed new 
definition and would mean a comprehensive plan established by a State 
or recipient of funds under Title 49, chapter 53. This definition 
reflects MAP-21's new requirement that the statewide and 
nonmetropolitan transportation planning process integrate the goals, 
objectives, performance measures, and targets from other performance-
based plans. The public transportation agency safety plan would be one 
of those plans.
    ``Public transportation operator'' would be modified to provide 
clarification. The phrase ``public entity'' in the existing definition 
would be changed to ``public entity or government-approved authority.'' 
This would reflect that the public transportation operator may be: (1) 
A public entity, or (2) a governmental-approved authority that is not a 
public entity. Also, the definition is modified so that the list of 
entities that are not considered to be ``public transportation 
operators'' would be expanded to include a conveyance that provides 
``sightseeing'' or ``certain types of shuttle service.''
    ``Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO)'' would be a 
new definition resulting from MAP-21's emphasis on nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning and the creation of a new optional statutory 
framework for these organizations. The definition would be taken 
directly from 23 U.S.C. 135(m)(1) and (2) and would mean a policy board 
of nonmetropolitan local officials or their designees created to carry 
out the regional transportation planning process.
    ``Regionally significant project'' would be modified by removing 
the word ``significant'' from the last sentence of the definition. This 
change would eliminate an unintended redundancy in the existing 
regulation,

[[Page 31792]]

as all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to 
regional highway travel are regionally significant projects. The 
proposed change would not change the meaning of the term ``Regionally 
significant project.''
    ``Scenario planning'' would be a new definition added to reflect 
MAP-21's codification of an existing best practice in the metropolitan 
transportation planning process. Scenario planning would mean a 
planning process that evaluates the effects of alternative policies, 
plans and/or programs on the future of a community or region. The MPOs 
may use scenario planning as they develop the transportation plan. The 
FHWA and FTA have based this definition on language in 23 U.S.C. 
134(i)(4)(A)-(C).
    ``Strategic Highway Safety Plan'' would be retained and updated, 
consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148, as amended by MAP-21. In addition to 
minor administrative changes, FHWA and FTA propose to change ``plan'' 
to ``comprehensive multidisciplinary plan, based on safety data.''
    ``Transit Asset Management Plan'' and ``Transit Asset Management 
System'' would be proposed new definitions, added as a result of the 
new performance-based planning provisions in MAP-21, to integrate 
performance elements of other plans (including the new transit asset 
management plan) into the transportation planning process. These 
definitions would refer to the definitions developed for these terms 
during the rulemaking to implement the new MAP-21 transit asset 
management provisions (49 U.S.C. 5326). See Transit Asset Management 
Rule [RIN 2132-AB07].
    ``Transportation Contol Measure'' would be changed to add the 
phrase ``including a substitute or additional TCM that is incorporated 
into the applicable SIP through the process established in CAA section 
176(c)(8)'' as part of the definition. This change is being proposed 
for better consistency with the 2005 amendments to section 176 of the 
Clean Air Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), enacted in section 
6011(d) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 
1144 (2005).
    ``Visualization techniques'' would be changed to add language to 
clarify the types of methods that can be used (``GIS or web-based 
surveys, inventories'') as well as the types of facilities and 
resources that may be included (``identifying features such as roadway 
rights of way, transit, intermodal, and non-motorized transportation 
facilities, historic and cultural resources, natural resources, and 
environmentally sensitive areas''). This list is illustrative of the 
types of items that can be included and is not an exclusive list.

Subpart B--Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning and 
Programming

    The title of Subpart B would be changed from ``Statewide 
Transportation Planning and Programming'' to ``Statewide and 
Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning'' to reflect statutory changes. 
The addition of ``Nonmetropolitan'' to the title epitomizes MAP-21's 
new emphasis on the importance of nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning.
Section 450.200 Purpose
    The statement of purpose in Sec.  450.200 would be revised to make 
two changes to reflect the MAP-21 shift to a performance-based approach 
to statewide transportation planning. The two changes include adding 
reference to the new 23 U.S.C. 150 (the new Federal-aid highway program 
provision requiring the Secretary to establish performance measures and 
standards) and adding ``performance-based'' before the reference to the 
multimodal transportation planning process.
Section 450.202 Applicability
    Existing Sec.  450.202 would be modified to add RTPOs as one of the 
entities responsible for satisfying the statewide transportation 
planning provisions. One of MAP-21's major changes is the codification 
of a framework States may use to establish and designate RTPOs.
Section 450.206 Scope of the Statewide Transportation and 
Nonmetropolitan Planning Process
    Section 450.206 describes the scope of the statewide and 
nonmetropolitan transportation planning process. The FHWA and FTA 
propose to revise this section to incorporate MAP-21's critical changes 
to the planning process requiring States, MPOs, and providers of public 
transportation to link investment priorities (the transportation 
improvement program of projects) to achieving performance targets that 
will be established to reflect performance measures in key areas. 
Several key elements of a performance management approach would be 
included in the proposed revisions to this regulation (see paragraph 
(c)): establishment of performance targets, coordination of performance 
targets, integration of elements of other performance-based plans, and 
consideration in the development of investment priorities. One other 
significant change is the inclusion of the word ``nonmetropolitan'' in 
the proposed heading reflecting the increased emphasis on 
nonmetropolitan transportation planning. These major proposed changes, 
as well as other minor proposed changes, are further described below.
    The heading of existing Sec.  450.206 would be changed to add ``and 
Nonmetropolitan'' to be consistent with MAP-21 section 1202's change to 
the heading of 23 U.S.C. 135.
    Section 450.206(b) would be revised to add ``(including Section 
4(f) properties as defined in 23 CFR 774.17)'' after ``human and 
natural environment'' to clarify that Section 4(f) properties should be 
included in considerations of human and natural environment for 
purposes of this section. This change also reflects the 2008 revision 
to the joint FHWA and FTA Section 4(f) regulations, which are now 
contained in 23 CFR 774 and include a definition for ``Section 4(f) 
Property''.
    The proposed new Sec.  450.206(c) would describe the new 
performance-based approach to transportation planning and programming 
under MAP-21 and set up the foundation for such an approach. As a 
fundamental principle, proposed new paragraph (c)(1) would require 
States to use a performance-based approach to transportation 
decisionmaking to support national goals and purposes.
    Proposed new paragraph (c)(2) starts building the foundational 
steps to this performance-based approach by requiring States to 
establish performance targets for the Federal-aid highway program based 
on measures that FHWA will develop in separate rulemakings (Federal-aid 
Highway Performance Measure Rules [RIN 2125-AF49, 2125-AF53, 2125-
AF54]). These separate rulemakings will contain detailed requirements 
for establishing targets. As part of the planning process, States would 
be required when selecting and establishing performance targets in 
proposed paragraph (c)(2), to coordinate those targets to ensure 
consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the MPOs. In 
addition, States would also coordinate the establishment of performance 
targets with affected Federal Lands Management Agencies. See 23 U.S.C. 
135(d)(2).
    Proposed new paragraph (c)(3) relates to public transportation 
performance targets and would require States to coordinate the 
selection of public transportation targets with providers of public 
transportation. These targets will be based on measures and standards 
that will be developed by FTA in

[[Page 31793]]

separate rulemakings (Transit Asset Management Rule [RIN 2132-AB07], 
and National and Public Transportation Safety Plans Rule [RIN 2132-
AB20]). Paragraph (c)(3) provides that in areas not represented by 
MPOs, States would be required to coordinate the selection of these 
public transportation performance targets to the maximum extent 
practicable with providers of public transportation, to ensure 
consistency. See 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2).
    In paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4), the language in section 23 U.S.C. 
135(d)(2)(B)(ii) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2)(B)(ii) that refers to 
``providers of public transportation'' in ``urbanized areas . . . not 
represented by a metropolitan planning organization'' would not be 
carried forward because by statute, all ``urbanized areas'' continue to 
be represented by an MPO (23 U.S.C. 134(d)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(d)(1)). Because of this discrepancy, FHWA and FTA propose the 
following interpretation. Instead of using ``urbanized areas,'' FHWA 
and FTA would instead use the phrase ``areas not represented by a 
metropolitan planning organization'' because States would need to 
coordinate with providers of public transportation in these areas not 
represented by a MPO to select performance targets with respect to 49 
U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4) continues to build the foundational steps 
by requiring States to integrate into the statewide transportation 
planning process the elements (goals, objectives, performance measures, 
and targets) in other State transportation plans and transportation 
processes, as well as any plans developed by providers of 
transportation in areas not represented by an MPO. Examples of other 
performance-based plans and processes include the HSIP, the SHSP, the 
NHS Asset Management Plan, the State Freight Plan (if the State chooses 
to develop one), the transit asset management plan, and the public 
transportation agency safety plan.
    The FHWA and FTA propose a new paragraph (c)(5) that is a critical 
piece of the foundation for a performance-based management approach. 
This paragraph would require States to consider the performance 
measures and its performance targets when developing its planning 
documents and making investment priorities. This would ensure that 
these decisions are transparent. See 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(D) and 49 
U.S.C. 5303(d)(2)(D).
    Existing Sec.  450.206(c) would become Sec.  450.206(d) and be 
revised to include that the performance-based planning aspects of the 
statewide transportation planning process, as described above in 
proposed new paragraph (c), are not subject to review by any court. In 
addition, ``reviewable'' is changed to ``subject to review.'' These 
changes are consistent with the MAP-21 changes to 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(3) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(3).
    Existing Sec.  450.206(d) would become 450.206(e) and the second 
sentence would be revised. The reference to 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) and (3) 
and 105 becomes 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2) because MAP-21 section 1105 changed 
references to the 23 U.S.C. 104 apportioned programs, and MAP-21 
section 1519(b) repealed 23 U.S.C. 105. Now, the Surface Transportation 
Program apportionment is under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2). Transportation 
planning, previously an eligible activity under the NHS program funds 
in SAFETEA-LU, is no longer eligible for the National Highway 
Performance Program (NHPP), which replaced the NHS program. References 
to 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 5311 would be added to clarify existing 
authorities. In addition, ``for statewide transportation planning'' 
would be added to the end of the second sentence to clarify eligibility 
of statewide planning for these funds.
Section 450.208 Coordination of Planning Process Activities
    Section 450.208 generally describes how States must work with other 
agencies when conducting the statewide and nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning process. The revisions to this section propose 
changes in two areas. First, there is a change to reflect the new 
emphasis under MAP-21 on nonmetropolitan transportation planning. 
Second, there are changes to reflect an aspect of the new performance-
based approach--the integration of elements of other performance-based 
plans into the planning process. These proposed changes, as well as 
other minor proposed changes, are further described below.
    Consistent with MAP-21's new emphasis on nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning, this section proposes two changes. First, 
existing Sec.  450.208(a)(4) would be revised to note the change in 
language from ``consider the concerns'' to ``cooperate with affected'' 
in accordance with changes to 23 U.S.C. 135(e)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(e)(1). Second, this proposed section would now include RTPOs as an 
entity States would cooperate with, if they choose to designate and 
establish RTPOs.
    The MAP-21 now requires the integration of other performance-based 
plans into the statewide transportation planning process under 23 
U.S.C. 135(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2). Current regulations 
encourage consideration of asset management principles during the 
planning process. With the new MAP-21 requirements to develop and 
implement asset management plans (See Federal-aid Highway Risk-Based 
Asset Management Plan Rule for the NHS [RIN 2125-AF57], Transit Asset 
Management Rule [RIN 2132-AB07], and National and Public Transportation 
Safety Plans Rule [RIN 2132-AB20]), it is even more important for 
States to consider these plans during the transportation planning 
process. The FHWA and FTA are proposing revisions to Sec.  450.208(e) 
and a new Sec.  450.208(f) to ensure that these asset management 
principles and techniques are part of the planning process. In 
particular, revised paragraph (e) would now require that States apply 
asset management principals and techniques to the statewide 
transportation planning process consistent with the Asset Management 
Plan for the NHS, the Transit Asset Management Plan, and the Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plan. The new paragraph (f) covers the 
non-NHS highways and proposes that States ``may'' apply asset 
management principles to the transportation planning and programming 
processes.
    Proposed new paragraph (g) includes the MAP-21 performance-related 
requirement that States integrate goals, objectives, performance 
measures, and targets of other performance-based plans into their 
statewide transportation planning process. This paragraph identifies 
the other performance-based plans processes States would integrate, 
including the Asset Management Plan for the NHS, the SHSP, the Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plan, the Transit Asset Management Plan, 
the State Freight Plan (if one exists, as it is optional), as 
appropriate, and other State transportation plans and processes 
required as part of a performance-based program.
    Existing Sec.  450.208(g) would become Sec.  450.208(i) and is 
revised to delete references to 49 U.S.C. 5316 and 5317 because MAP-21 
repealed these sections. This change was made throughout this proposed 
regulation; please see the redline version of the regulatory text 
included in the docket for further information.
    Existing Sec.  450.208(h) would be deleted and the reference to the 
SHSP would be moved to Sec.  450.208(g)(2). The reference to SHSP would 
be moved because of the new MAP-21 requirements for States to integrate 
the

[[Page 31794]]

elements of other performance-based plans and processes (including the 
SHSP) into the statewide transportation planning process.
Section 450.210 Interested Parties, Public Involvement, and 
Consultation
    Section 450.210 requires States to involve members of the public 
and nonmetropolitan local officials in the planning process that 
produces the long-range statewide transportation plan and STIP. The 
proposed Sec.  450.210 would retain the existing process for public 
involvement and would, along with minor changes: (1) Require States to 
cooperate, rather than consult, with nonmetropolitan local officials in 
development of the long-range statewide transportation plan and STIP, 
and (2) add a new process for States that elect to establish and 
designate RTPOs to perform planning in nonmetropolitan areas. These 
proposed changes reflect MAP-21's theme of increased cooperation 
between States and nonmetropolitan areas in transportation planning. 
These changes, and other minor changes, are described below.
    Existing Sec.  450.210(a)(1)(i) would be revised so that the word 
``citizens'' would be replaced with the word ``individuals'' to avoid 
confusion of the term ``citizens'' with U.S. citizenship. In proposed 
paragraph (a)(1)(iii), the words ``but not limited to'' following 
``including'' would be removed because they are unnecessary; use of 
``including'' or ``include'' generally precedes a nonexclusive list. 
Both of these changes would be made throughout the proposed regulatory 
text; to see all the instances please refer to the redline version of 
the regulatory text included in the docket as referenced above. 
Examples of affected public agencies to which a State might provide an 
opportunity to be involved in the statewide planning process under 
Sec.  450.210(a)(1)(i) include agencies with responsibility for 
economic development, human and natural resources, environmental 
protection, sustainability, mitigation, adaptation, climate, and air 
quality.
    Section 450.210(b) requires States to provide for nonmetropolitan 
local official participation in the development of the long-range 
statewide transportation plan and STIP. Paragraph (b) would retain the 
current requirement for States to have a documented process for the 
participation of nonmetropolitan local officials and to review and 
solicit comments on the process at least once every 5 years. The 
current regulation requires this participation to be consultative in 
nature, which means that States are required to consider the views of 
nonmetropolitan local officials. Consistent with MAP-21's amendments, 
the proposed regulation would require States to cooperate with 
nonmetropolitan local officials, meaning that they would be required to 
work together to achieve a common outcome. The proposed change from 
consultation to cooperation would require States to work more closely 
with nonmetropolitan local officials in the development of the long-
range statewide transportation plan and STIP. Section 450.210(b)(1) 
also would be revised to remove the reference to ``(as of February 24, 
2006)'' because the requirement has existed for long enough that that 
date is no longer meaningful.
    Proposed Sec.  450.210(c), which concerns areas of States under the 
jurisdiction of an Indian tribal government, would replace ``Federal 
land management agencies'' with the ``Department of the Interior'' as 
the entity with which States must consult when forming the long-range 
statewide transportation plan and STIP for such area. This change would 
be made because the Department of the Interior, not the Federal land 
management agencies, is the Federal agency with responsibility for 
managing Indian tribal matters. Paragraph (c) would also be revised to 
insert the word ``the'' in the phrase ``Secretary of the Interior'' to 
correct that official's title.
    Proposed Sec.  450.210(d) would be added to provide a process to 
establish and designate an RTPO and describe the structure and primary 
functions of an RTPO. To support States' cooperation with 
nonmetropolitan areas, MAP-21 introduces an optional formal process for 
States to establish and designate RTPOs to carry out the transportation 
planning process in nonmetropolitan areas. If established, a State 
would cooperate with nonmetropolitan local officials through the RTPO. 
The establishment and designation of an RTPO is optional; if a State 
chooses not to establish RTPOs under the proposed rule, the State 
itself would carry out all elements of the statewide and 
nonmetropolitan planning process, as is currently required, and would 
cooperate directly with affected nonmetropolitan local officials.
    The MAP-21 provides that ``States'' have the authority to establish 
and designate an RTPO. Proposed paragraph (d) would clarify that this 
authority resides in the Governor or the Governor's designee. This 
clarification is proposed because the Governor is the chief executive 
of a State. Proposed paragraph (d) would require existing regional 
planning organizations to go through the formal establishment and 
designation process required by this proposed section to become an 
RTPO. This is proposed because RTPOs have a certain structure and 
statutorily specified duties, as described below, and MAP-21 requires 
States to cooperate with RTPOs when they are present.
    The proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), which closely track 
statutory language, would describe the structure of an RTPO. Because an 
RTPO would conduct planning for a nonmetropolitan region, an RTPO would 
be a multijurisdictional organization composed of volunteer 
nonmetropolitan local officials or their designees, and volunteer 
representatives of local transportation systems. An RTPO also would be 
required to establish a policy committee and a fiscal and 
administrative agent to provide professional planning, management, and 
administrative support. The policy committee would be composed mostly 
of nonmetropolitan local officials, with additional representatives, as 
appropriate, from the State, private business, transportation service 
providers, economic development practitioners, and the public in the 
region.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3), which also closely tracks statutory 
language, would describe the duties of an RTPO. The duties of an RTPO 
would include developing a regional long-range multimodal 
transportation plan and a regional TIP, providing a forum for public 
participation in the statewide and regional transportation planning 
process, and conducting other activities to support and enhance the 
statewide planning process. By conducting nonmetropolitan planning as 
local organizations, RTPOs would enhance the planning, coordination, 
and implementation of the long-range statewide transportation plans and 
STIPs, with an emphasis on addressing the needs of the nonmetropolitan 
areas of the State. Nothing in paragraph (d) would prevent an RTPO from 
conducting other transportation planning activities in addition to 
those required under this paragraph.
Section 450.212 Transportation Planning Studies and Project Development
    Current Sec.  450.212 and Appendix A provide the context and the 
means for using transportation planning information and decisions in 
the environmental review process. Those provisions reflect long-
standing practice for highway and transit projects pursuant to various 
sections of the Council on Environmental Quality

[[Page 31795]]

regulations that implement NEPA at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and case 
law.\37\ The practice of using information and decisions developed 
during transportation planning provides opportunities for expediting 
project delivery, generating cost savings by reducing duplication of 
effort, and improving environmental outcomes through the planning of 
projects in an environmentally sensitive manner. The MAP-21 section 
1310 broadens this practice by creating 23 U.S.C. 168, which provides 
additional statutory authority for linking planning and the 
environmental review process. The FHWA and FTA propose to retain Sec.  
450.212 without revision. The agencies will address implementation of 
section 1310 and any needed updates to provisions on pre-MAP-
21integration authorities through separate rulemaking or guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. DOT, 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 
1997) (finding that the EIS appropriately relied on growth plans 
developed during the planning process for the EIS discussion of the 
project's growth inducing effects); North Buckhead Civic Association 
v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1990) (validating the use of a 
purpose and need statement under NEPA that was developed through the 
transportation planning process); Sierra Club v. U.S. DOT, 310 F. 
Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Nevada 2004) (finding that reliance during the 
NEPA process on forecasts and modeling efforts developed in the 
planning process was reasonable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current Appendix A of 23 CFR part 450, referenced in existing 
Sec.  450.212, provides detailed information on how to evaluate whether 
material, information, decisions, or analyses developed during the 
transportation planning process could be used during the environmental 
review process of a project (i.e., project development). The FHWA and 
FTA derived the concepts in Appendix A from NEPA regulations, guidance, 
and case law. The Agencies propose to retain Appendix A.
Section 450.214 Development of Programmatic Mitigation Plans
    Proposed Sec.  450.214 is new and implements a new statutory 
provision at 23 U.S.C. 169, created by MAP-21 Section 1311, that 
provides a statutory framework for the optional development of 
programmatic mitigation plans as part of the planning process for use 
during the subsequent environmental review process. See 23 U.S.C. 
168(c)(1)(E). This new proposed regulatory section is intended to 
clarify the possible scope, scale, and contents of programmatic 
mitigation plans developed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 169 as well as the 
process used to develop them, and subsequently use them, in the 
environmental review process. For FHWA and FTA, programmatic mitigation 
plans are plans that address the potential environmental impacts of 
future transportation projects.
    A State can develop a programmatic mitigation plan at the 
statewide, regional, local jurisdiction, ecosystem, watershed or 
similar scale, and can normally develop a plan with an aim toward 
protecting, preserving, rehabilitating, or creating environmental 
resources, or mitigating possible harm to environmental resources due 
to future transportation projects. Examples of resources that the plan 
might identify include wetlands, streams, rivers, stormwater, 
parklands, cultural resources, historic resources, farmlands, and 
threatened and endangered species. The plan may inventory existing or 
planned wetland, stream, habitat, species, and/or other environmental 
resource mitigation sites or areas, and resource areas of high value or 
concern, as well as adopt or develop standard measures or operating 
procedures for mitigating certain types of impacts. The plan may 
include development of mitigation or conservation banks, in-lieu-fee 
programs, or consolidated mitigation areas. The plan may be used to 
develop mitigation strategies based on an analysis of greenhouse gas 
emissions and vulnerability to climate change impacts, or an energy 
analysis. In developing a programmatic mitigation plan as part of the 
statewide transportation planning process (or the metropolitan 
transportation planning process under Sec.  450.320 below), a State (or 
MPO) would need to consult with each agency with jurisdiction over the 
environmental resources considered in the plan. The consultation may 
address considerations such as the applicability of the plan to meet 
multiple regulatory requirements and identification of steps necessary 
for implementation of the plan. The State (or MPO), must make the plan 
available for review and comment by the public and the applicable 
environmental resource agencies. A programmatic approach to 
environmental mitigation has the potential to streamline the project 
development process and improve environmental outcomes through early 
identification of potential environmental impacts and identification of 
potential avoidance or mitigation opportunities. The degree to which 
programmatic mitigation strategies are useful later in the project 
development process depends on the extent of consultation, as well as 
the level of detail that is developed during planning with the agency 
of jurisdiction over a particular resource that will later consider 
that mitigation for purposes of satisfying permit requirements. Thus, 
FHWA and FTA suggest that such consultation take place during planning, 
and agreement reached as much as feasible to maximize the extent to 
which programmatic mitigation can be used. The FHWA and FTA strongly 
encourage flexibility within the constraints of existing regulations 
with respect to permitting in support of better environmental outcomes.
Section 450.216 Development and Content of the Long-Range Statewide 
Transportation Plan
    Existing Sec.  450.214 would become Sec.  450.216. It would be 
revised to codify in regulation MAP-21's provision that each State 
should implement a performance-based approach in the development of its 
long-range statewide transportation plan. The statewide transportation 
plan is a multimodal transportation plan addressing at least a 20-year 
planning horizon for all areas of the State. As part of the proposed 
performance-based changes to this section, each State should describe 
in its long-range statewide transportation plan the performance 
measures and performance targets it used to assess the performance of 
its transportation system. The State's long-range plan should include a 
system performance report that contains the State's evaluation of the 
condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to 
performance targets established by the State to address the performance 
measures identified under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), and 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 
49 U.S.C. 5329(d). The State should also report on the progress 
achieved by the MPOs in meeting their performance targets in comparison 
with the system performance recorded in previous reports. See 23 U.S.C. 
135(f)(7) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(7). This section adds the new emphasis 
on nonmetropolitan planning and requires a State to provide 
nonmetropolitan local officials or RTPOs the opportunity to participate 
in the development and update of the plan. Finally, the section also 
encourages the State to assess the appropriateness of innovative 
finance techniques in its development of financing strategies as part 
of the financial plan component of the long-range statewide 
transportation plan. It also encourages a State, when assessing its 
capital investments as part of the long-range statewide transportation 
plan, to consider the financial plans and investment strategies from 
the State Asset Management Plan for the NHS, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 
119(e), and the investment priorities of the public

[[Page 31796]]

transit asset management plan, as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326. This 
will help ensure that key elements of the asset management plans are 
considered as part of the investment decisionmaking process.
    Consistent with existing Sec.  450.214, proposed Sec.  450.216 
would maintain the opportunity for the long-range statewide 
transportation plan to be comprised of policies and/or strategies, not 
necessarily specific projects, over the minimum 20-year forecast 
period. In addition, it would retain State discretion to identify a 
periodic schedule for updating the long-range statewide transportation 
plan and to revise the plan as necessary.
    Existing Sec.  450.214(c) would become proposed Sec.  450.216(c) 
and be revised to add ``as appropriate'' after the list of items that 
the plan shall reference, summarize, or contain because some items 
might not be relevant. Examples of plans that the plan might reference 
include energy plans, or plans that address resilience to current and 
future conditions. Such conditions could include severe weather events 
and changes in weather patterns.
    Existing Sec.  450.214(d) would become proposed Sec.  450.216(d) 
and be revised to reflect that States should integrate into the 
statewide transportation plan the priorities, goals, countermeasures, 
strategies, or projects contained in the HSIP, including the SHSP, as 
required under 23 U.S.C. 148, and the Public Transportation Agency 
Safety Plan required under 49 U.S.C. 5329, or an Interim Agency Safety 
Plan in accordance with 49 CFR part 659, as in effect until completion 
of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
    Proposed Sec.  450.216(f) would be added to reflect a key provision 
added by MAP-21 to 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(7) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(7) 
regarding a performance driven, outcome-based statewide transportation 
planning process and closely follows the statutory text. Specifically, 
proposed paragraph (f) states that the statewide transportation plan 
should be performance-based and should include a description of the 
performance measures and targets used in assessing the performance of 
the transportation system. The statewide plan should also include a 
system performance report and subsequent updates evaluating the 
performance of the transportation system with respect to the 
performance targets, including progress achieved by the MPO(s) in 
meeting the performance targets in comparison with system performance 
recorded in previous reports.
    Consistent with MAP-21's emphasis on nonmetropolitan planning 
discussed above, and requirements for States to work more closely with 
nonmetropolitan local officials and, if applicable, RTPOs, existing 
Sec.  450.214(g) would become proposed Sec.  450.216(h), 
``consultation'' with ``non-metropolitan'' officials would become 
``cooperation'' with ``nonmetropolitan'' officials, and provision for 
cooperation with RTPOs, if applicable, would be added. See 23 U.S.C. 
135(f)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2)(B). State DOTs would retain final 
decisionmaking authority for development of the long range statewide 
transportation plan and the statewide transportation improvement 
program.
    Existing Sec.  450.214(j) would become proposed Sec.  450.216(k) 
and be revised to add regional and local entities to the list of 
entities States must consult when developing the discussion on 
potential environmental mitigation strategies or the long-range 
statewide transportation plan.
    Existing Sec.  450.214(k) would become proposed Sec.  450.216(l) 
and be updated. Consistent with MAP-21's new emphasis on 
nonmetropolitan transportation planning, this section proposes that the 
State provide nonmetropolitan local elected officials, or the RTPOs if 
applicable, the opportunity to participate in the development and 
update of the long-range statewide transportation plan. This change 
results from changes in MAP-21 section 1202 to 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(B) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2)(B). In addition, proposed paragraph (l)(2) 
would remove the reference to ``to the maximum extent practicable'' to 
be consistent with the statutory text (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3) and 49 
U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)). Where applicable, ``to the maximum extent 
practicable'' is included in the appropriate provisions in the 
referenced Sec.  450.210(a).
    Existing Sec.  450.214(l) would become proposed Sec.  450.216(m) 
and be updated to remove two references to ``(but is not required to)'' 
after the word ``may'' because it is redundant. A statement would also 
be added to this section: ``[t]he financial plan may include an 
assessment of the appropriateness of innovative finance techniques (for 
example, tolling, pricing, bonding, public private partnerships, or 
other strategies) as revenue sources.'' This provision would support 23 
U.S.C. 106(h)(3)(D), which encourages earlier consideration of 
innovative finance techniques. Although 23 U.S.C. 106(h)(3)(D) refers 
to consideration as part of the finance plan for a project, it is also 
appropriate to consider innovative finance techniques as part of the 
finance plan for the statewide plan.
    New Sec.  450.216(n) is proposed to provide that as the State 
develops the financial strategies for its long-range statewide 
transportation plan and assesses its capital investment, it should 
consider the financial plan and investment strategies from the newly 
required State asset management plan for the NHS as defined in 23 
U.S.C. 119(e) and investment priorities of the newly required public 
transit asset management plan(s) as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326. 
Information from these newly required plans can inform States in their 
capital investment decisionmaking process.
    Existing Sec.  450.214(g) would become Sec.  450.216(p) and would 
be revised to add ``for public review'' to clarify that the long-range 
statewide transportation plan shall be made available for public 
review, including electronically. This is consistent with a long-
standing statutory requirement in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 
5304(f)(3).
Section 450.218 Development and Content of the Statewide Transportation 
Improvement Program (STIP)
    Existing Sec.  450.216 would become proposed Sec.  450.218. Section 
450.218 describes the development and the content of the STIP. The STIP 
is the prioritized listing of transportation projects covering a period 
of 4 years that the State develops in cooperation with the MPOs, 
nonmetropolitan local officials, and, if applicable, RTPOs. The FHWA 
and FTA approve the STIP. This section would be revised to incorporate 
MAP-21's new requirements for a performance-based planning and 
programming process and increased emphasis on nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning. A significant revision to this section would 
be the addition of the new performance-based requirement that the STIP 
would include a description of how the investment priorities in the 
STIP contribute toward the achievement of the performance targets in 
the statewide transportation plan. Because the STIP is developed with 
opportunity for public comment, the new requirement to demonstrate how 
investment decisions are made adds additional accountability and 
transparency to the planning process. The establishment of performance 
targets would also align the STIP in those key areas where targets are 
established, including safety, state of good repair, congestion and 
reliability, freight, and emissions. A description of the performance-
based changes to this section and other minor proposed changes to this 
section are as follows.

[[Page 31797]]

    Existing Sec.  450.216(a) would become Sec.  450.218(a) and be 
updated to add ``shall'' after ``4 years and'' and include the phrase 
``of the State'' after the word ``Governor'' to provide clarification.
    Section 450.216(c) would become Sec.  450.218(c) and be updated to 
reflect the new emphasis on nonmetropolitan transportation planning. 
Specifically, the proposed regulation would change ``consultation'' 
with ``non-metropolitan'' officials to ``cooperation'' with 
``nonmetropolitan'' officials and would add cooperation with RTPOs, if 
applicable. These changes reflect MAP-21 revisions to 49 U.S.C. 
5304(g)(2)(B)(i). Whereas 49 U.S.C. 5304 is nearly the same as 23 
U.S.C. 135, this is one instance where changes to the two statutes were 
inconsistent. The MAP-21 revision to section 135(g)(2)(B)(i) does not 
change ``consultation'' to ``cooperation.'' In updating these joint 
regulations, FHWA and FTA determined that it was appropriate to use 
``cooperation,'' rather than ``consultation'' in this paragraph of 
these joint regulations. To have two different processes--a 
consultation process for Title 23 actions and a cooperation process for 
Title 49 actions--is overly burdensome. Using ``cooperation'' is 
consistent with the comparable changes MAP-21 made to the long-range 
statewide transportation plan provisions (see proposed Sec.  
450.216(h)). Because of the long-standing requirement that the STIP be 
consistent with the long-range statewide transportation plan, the State 
should follow a similar coordination process for both of these 
documents. In addition, as defined for purposes of part 450, 
``cooperation'' requires States to work more closely with 
nonmetropolitan local officials and RTPOs, if applicable, than 
``consultation.'' This proposed change is also consistent with the 
overall MAP-21 approach to increasing the presence of affected 
nonmetropolitan local officials and regional planning organizations in 
the statewide planning process.
    Existing Sec.  450.216(e) and (g) would become proposed Sec.  
450.218(e) and (g), and ``Federal Lands Highway Program'' would be 
changed to ``Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands 
Transportation Program, and Federal Lands Access Program'' to reflect 
MAP-21 program changes to 23 U.S.C. 201-204.
    Section 450.216(g) would become Sec.  450.218(g) and be updated to 
reflect MAP-21 changes to programs, phrases, and plans. In particular, 
``transportation enhancements'' would become ``transportation 
alternatives,'' and ``associated transit improvements'' would be added 
under (g). ``Associated transit improvements'' is FTA's equivalent of 
FHWA's ``transportation alternatives.'' Reference to SHSP would be 
changed to HSIP because HSIP is the program that funds safety projects 
(as opposed to a SHSP), and is more closely associated with the STIP. 
Under Sec.  450.218(g)(2), 23 U.S.C. 104(f) would become 23 U.S.C. 
104(d) and reference to 49 U.S.C. 5339 would be deleted. Paragraph 
450.218(g)(4) would be revised to remove references to the ``National 
Highway System,'' and ``and/or Equity Bonus'' because these programs 
are not continued under MAP-21 and remove reference to ``[a]t the 
State's discretion'' as it is repetitive. Because of the creation of 
FTA's emergency relief funding program, FHWA and FTA want to clarify 
that Sec.  450.218(g)(5), which indicates that emergency relief 
projects meeting certain conditions are not required to be included in 
the STIP, would not apply to resiliency projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 
5324. Section 450.218(g)(6) would be revised and reference to 
``national planning and research projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 5314'' 
would be changed to ``[r]esearch development demonstration and 
deployment projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 5312, and technical 
assistance and standards development projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 
5314.'' This change is proposed because of MAP-21 changes to research 
programs that separated the programs into two sections and created a 
distinct technical assistance and standards development program. 
Section 450.218(g)(8) would be added to reflect that State safety 
oversight funds awarded under 49 U.S.C. 5329 are not subject to the 
rule of financial constraint, and therefore State safety oversight 
programs may, but are not required to, be included in the STIP.
    Existing Sec.  450.216(j) would become proposed Sec.  450.218(j) 
and be updated to add ``subpart A'' after the second reference to ``40 
CFR part 93'' to be more specific regarding the citation for the 
transportation conformity.
    Section 450.216(l) would become Sec.  450.218(l) and would be 
revised to delete ``made'' from the phrase ``reasonably expected to be 
made available'' for consistency with other terminology. The phrase 
``Starting December 11, 2007'' would be removed because this date has 
passed and the use of year of expenditure dollars for revenue and cost 
estimates in the STIP continues to be a requirement. Reference to 
``(but is not required to)'' after the word ``may'' would be removed 
because it is redundant.
    Section 450.216(m) would become Sec.  450.218(m) and the following 
provision would be moved to its own section at 450.218(p) for added 
emphasis: ``The STIP shall include 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.'' In addition, a more specific statutory 
citation to the definition of public transportation (``49 U.S.C. 
5302'') would replace the more general reference (``49 U.S.C. Chapter 
53'').
    Consistent with the new requirements to integrate elements of other 
performance-based plans and processes into the statewide transportation 
planning process, a new proposed Sec.  450.218(o) would be added to 
indicate that the STIP should be informed by the financial plan and the 
investment strategies from the State asset management plan for the NHS 
and by the public transit asset management plan. See 23 U.S.C. 119(e) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5326. The financial plan and investment strategies of the 
State asset management plan for the NHS and the investment strategies 
of the public transit asset management plan are elements of new 
performance-based plans required under MAP-21. The FHWA and FTA propose 
in this section that States consider these elements as part of the 
investment decisionmaking process to inform the STIP.
    The FHWA and FTA propose to incorporate the MAP-21 requirements for 
a performance-based STIP in proposed new Sec.  450.218(r). See 23 
U.S.C. 135(g)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(g)(4). Importantly, proposed 
paragraph (r) would require the STIP describe how the projects in the 
STIP would achieve the State performance targets--linking investment 
priorities to those targets. Because the development of a STIP is a 
public process, these new requirements help establish accountability 
and transparency of transportation investment decisions.
Section 450.220 Self-Certification, Federal Findings, and Federal 
Approvals
    Existing Sec.  450.218 would become Sec.  450.220. Proposed Sec.  
450.220 describes how States would self-certify that the transportation 
planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable 
requirements, including MAP-21 requirements. It also describes how FHWA 
and FTA would approve the STIP after the State submits the STIP to FHWA 
and FTA. This section would be largely unchanged except that in Sec.  
450.220(a)(4) the reference to section

[[Page 31798]]

1101(b) of SAFETEA-LU would become section 1101(b) of MAP-21, the 
successor provision.
Section 450.222 Project Selection From the STIP
    Existing Sec.  450.220 would become Sec.  450.222. Proposed Sec.  
450.222 describes the procedures for the selection of projects from the 
STIP by the State and the MPOs. This section is changed in two ways. 
First, it would be revised to reflect MAP-21's increased emphasis on 
nonmetropolitan transportation planning. Second, it would be updated to 
reflect name changes to tribal funding programs. These changes are 
described below.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would be revised to include the new MAP-21 
requirements (23 U.S.C. 135(g)(6) and 49 U.S.C. 5304 (g)(6)) for States 
to cooperate with nonmetropolitan areas when selecting projects from 
the STIP for projects that are not on the NHS. This proposed new 
requirement will require States work with local officials, or, if 
applicable, RTPOs, when selecting projects from the STIP in 
nonmetropolitan areas. Prior to MAP-21, States were not required to 
conduct outreach with nonmetropolitan local officials when selecting 
projects from the STIP that are not on the NHS.
    In revised Sec.  450.222(d), ``Federal Lands Highway Program'' 
would be changed to ``Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands 
Transportation Program, and Federal Lands Access Program'' to reflect 
MAP-21 changes to 23 U.S.C. 201-204.
Section 450.224 Applicability of NEPA to Statewide Transportation Plans 
and Programs
    Section 450.222 would become Sec.  450.224 and be unchanged except 
that the acronym NEPA is spelled out as the ``National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).'' This change would be 
made throughout the proposed regulations; please see the redline 
version of the regulatory text included in the docket for further 
information.
Section 450.226 Phase-In of New Requirements
    Existing Sec.  450.224 would become Sec.  450.226. This proposed 
section updates the schedule for implementation based on MAP-21 
changes. The section is based on provisions in 23 U.S.C. 135(l) and 49 
U.S.C. 5304(k), as well as the new performance requirements in 23 
U.S.C. 150 and 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 5329.
    For purposes of phasing in the new MAP-21 requirements, there are 
two categories of changes. The first category is those changes that are 
unrelated to performance management, and the second category is those 
changes that are performance management related. The FHWA and FTA 
propose two different phase-in schedules, one for each category of 
changes.
    The major change unrelated to performance management is the new 
emphasis on nonmetropolitan transportation planning. The FHWA and FTA 
propose that STIPs and statewide long range plans adopted on or after a 
date 2 years after publication of this final rule in the Federal 
Register must reflect this new emphasis. The FHWA and FTA would only 
approve STIP amendments or updates that are based on a planning process 
that incorporates the new emphasis on nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning. For instance, if this final rule were published in fall of 
2014, FHWA and FTA would only approve a STIP after fall of 2016 that 
meets the non-performance-based requirements of this rule. The FHWA and 
FTA also propose that before the end of this 2-year period, States may 
use the new MAP-21 requirements in developing STIPs and long-range 
transportation plans. The FHWA and FTA believe this approach is 
consistent with MAP-21 requirements (23 U.S.C. 135(l) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(k)) and does not require the State to deviate from its established 
planning update cycle to implement MAP-21 changes. This approach also 
meets the requirement that States shall reflect changes made to their 
transportation plan or STIP updates not later than 2 years after the 
date of issuance of guidance by the Secretary.
    The second phase-in schedule would be for the new performance 
management requirements proposed in this NPRM (e.g., discussion of 
targets in long range plans and STIPs, requirements to coordinate 
target selection, linking of targets to investment priorities in STIPs, 
system performance reports, integration of elements of other plans) 
that depend on issuance of FHWA's and FTA's performance rules. The FHWA 
and FTA propose that updates and amendments to any STIPs and plans 
based on these new performance management requirements would be based 
on the effective date of the performance measures rules implementing 23 
U.S.C. 150 and 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 5329.\38\ The FHWA and FTA currently 
anticipate that the performance rules implementing these provisions 
would have the same effective date. If the effective date of these 
performance measure rules is not the same, the phase-in of the new 
performance management requirements would be based on the effective 
date of each individual performance measure rule. In order to determine 
the appropriate phase-in schedule of the new performance management 
requirements, FHWA and FTA balanced a number of statutory provisions 
and logistical and practical considerations. Each of these provisions 
has specific timing requirements for establishment of targets:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Federal-aid Highway Performance Measure Rules [RIN 2125-
AF49, 2125-AF53, 2125-AF54], Transit Asset Management Rule [RIN 
2132-AB07], and National and Public Transportation Safety Plans Rule 
[RIN 2132-AB20].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1)--States would have 1 year from the 
effective date of the performance management rule to establish targets 
(the specific timing will be discussed in the separate rulemaking 
implementing 23 U.S.C. 150);
     49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)--States or recipients would be 
required to include performance targets in a safety plan 1 year after 
the effective date of the final rule; and
     49 U.S.C. 5326(c)--Recipients would need to establish 
performance targets not later than 3 months after the issuance of the 
final rule and each fiscal year thereafter.
    Once States or recipients establish targets, MPOs would be required 
to establish targets not later than 180 days after the date on which 
the relevant State or recipient establishes performance targets (23 
U.S.C. 134(h)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)). These targets would need to 
be coordinated among the States, MPOs, and providers of public 
transportation to ensure consistency.
    The FHWA and FTA determined that giving States, recipients, and 
MPOs 2 years following the effective date of the performance rules 
would provide adequate time for the relevant States, recipients, and 
MPOs to develop targets, coordinate targets, and include any 
performance-based planning requirements in their transportation 
planning process and related documents. This phase-in period would also 
provide time to integrate into the transportation planning process, 
directly or by reference, the goals, objectives, performance measures, 
and targets from other transportation plans and transportation 
processes, as proposed in 23 CFR 450.206(c) and 450.306(d). Depending 
on the measure, providing a 2-year phase-in of these requirements may 
provide MPOs additional time after the establishment of the targets to 
include these targets in any new or amended metropolitan or

[[Page 31799]]

long range statewide transportation plans or transportation improvement 
programs.
    Consistent with the statutory requirement in 23 U.S.C. 135(l) and 
49 U.S.C. 5304(k), FHWA and FTA are not proposing to require a State to 
deviate from its established planning update cycle to implement the 
changes required by MAP-21 to the planning process.

Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming

Section 450.300 Purpose
    Similar to the ``Purpose'' section of subpart B, existing Sec.  
450.300 would be revised to make two changes to reflect that under MAP-
21 the metropolitan planning process becomes a performance-based 
process. The two changes include adding reference to the new 23 U.S.C. 
150 and adding ``performance-based'' before the reference to the 
``multimodal transportation planning process.''
Section 450.306 Scope of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning
    Existing Sec.  450.306 describes the scope of the metropolitan 
transportation planning process. Similar to proposed revisions to Sec.  
450.206 (the scope of the statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning process), FHWA and FTA propose to revise this section to 
incorporate MAP-21's critical performance-based changes to the planning 
process. States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation would 
link investment priorities (the transportation improvement program of 
projects) to achieving performance targets in key areas. Elements of a 
performance management approach would be included in the proposed 
revisions paragraphs (a) and (d): An emphasis on developing planning 
documents through a performance-based approach, establishment of 
performance targets, coordination of performance targets, and the 
integration of elements of other performance-based plans. These major 
proposed changes as well as other minor proposed changes are further 
described below.
    Section 450.306 would be revised to add proposed new Sec.  
450.306(a) to reflect the new statutory language in 23 U.S.C. 134(c) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5303(c)(1) requiring a performance driven, outcome-based 
approach to planning for metropolitan areas.
    Section 450.306(b) would become Sec.  450.306(c) and be revised to 
add ``(including Section 4(f) properties as defined in 23 CFR 774.17)'' 
after ``human and natural environment'' to clarify that Section 4(f) 
properties should be included in considerations of human and natural 
environment for purposes of this section. This change also reflects the 
2008 revision to the joint FHWA and FTA Section 4(f) regulations, which 
are now contained in 23 CFR 774 and include a definition for ``Section 
4(f) Property''.
    Revised Sec.  450.306(d) is proposed to incorporate MAP-21 
requirements for a performance-based approach to metropolitan 
transportation planning. See 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(h)(2). As described in paragraph (d)(1), part of the metropolitan 
planning process would include supporting the national goals, described 
in 23 U.S.C. 150(b), and general purposes, described in 49 U.S.C. 
5301(c).
    Proposed new paragraph (d)(2) starts building the foundational 
steps to this performance-based approach for MPOs by requiring them to 
establish performance targets for the Federal-aid highway program based 
on measures that FHWA will develop in separate rulemakings (Federal-aid 
Highway Performance Measure Rules [RIN 2125-AF49, 2125-AF53, 2125-
AF54]). These separate rulemakings will contain detailed requirements 
for establishing targets. This paragraph also would require MPOs to 
establish performance targets using the measures and standards that FTA 
will develop in separate rulemakings (Transit Asset Management Rule 
[RIN 2132-AB07] and National and Public Transportation Safety Plans 
Rule [RIN 2132-AB20]). As part of the planning process, in proposed 
paragraph (d)(2), MPOs would be required to coordinate the selection 
and establishment of targets. When establishing targets for the 
Federal-aid highway program, MPOs would be required to ensure that the 
MPOs' and State's targets are as consistent as practicable. When 
establishing transit-related targets, MPOs would be required to 
coordinate to the maximum extent practicable with providers of public 
transportation. These coordination requirements would be based on the 
new MAP-21 requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(h)(2)(B).
    Paragraph (d)(3) would require MPOs to select performance targets 
not later than 180 days after the date on which the relevant State or 
provider of public transportation establishes performance targets based 
on the MAP-21 requirements.
    Paragraph (d)(4) would continue to build the foundational steps by 
requiring MPOs to integrate into the metropolitan transportation 
planning process the elements (goals, objectives, performance measures, 
and targets) in other State transportation plans and processes, as well 
as any plans developed by providers of public transportation in the 
metropolitan planning area, required as part of a performance-based 
program. Examples of other performance-based plans and processes 
include the SHSP, as defined in the HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148), the State NHS 
asset management plan for highways in 23 U.S.C. 119(e), the transit 
asset management plan as defined in 49 U.S.C. 5326, the Public Agency 
Safety Plan in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), the optional State Freight Plan, as 
described in MAP-21 section 1118, the CMAQ performance plan in 23 
U.S.C. 149(l), the congestion management process, and other State 
transportation plans and processes required as part of a performance-
based program.
    Existing Sec.  450.306(c) would become Sec.  450.306(e) and be 
changed to include that the performance-based planning aspects of the 
metropolitan transportation planning process, as described above in 
proposed new paragraph (d), are not reviewable by any court. These 
changes are consistent with MAP-21 changes to 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(3) and 
49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(3).
    Existing Sec.  450.306 (e) and (h) would be deleted and references 
to the new NHS asset management plan and the Transit Asset Management 
Plan, other safety and security planning and review processes, plans, 
and programs, and the SHSP would be moved to Sec.  450.306(d)(5). These 
would be moved because, as discussed above, this section includes the 
MAP-21 requirements to integrate elements of other performance-based 
plans into the metropolitan transportation planning process.
    Existing Sec.  450.306(i) would be moved to new Sec.  450.310(c).
Section 450.308 Funding for Transportation Planning and Unified 
Planning Work Programs
    Existing Sec.  450.308 would be retained and updated. This section 
describes funding for metropolitan transportation planning and the 
development of Unified Planning Work Programs (regulations for these 
work programs are contained in 23 CFR part 420).
    Proposed Sec.  450.308(a) would remove reference to the Equity 
Bonus Program, formerly codified at 23 U.S.C. 105, because MAP-21 
repealed this program and it is no longer available as a funding 
source. Proposed Sec.  450.308(a) would also add the sentence, ``At the 
option of the State, funds provided under 49 U.S.C. 5305(e) may also be 
provided to MPOs for activities that support metropolitan 
transportation planning.'' This proposed sentence does not reflect

[[Page 31800]]

a change in the law, but rather would be added to clarify that funds 
apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 5305(e), which are primarily for the 
purpose of State planning and research, are a possible source of 
funding to MPOs for activities that support metropolitan transportation 
planning. Statutory references in Sec.  450.308(a) would be updated as 
follows: 23 U.S.C. 104(f) becomes 23 U.S.C. 104(d), reference to 49 
U.S.C. 5305(d) is added, reference to 49 U.S.C. 5339 is deleted, 
reference to 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) and (b)(3) becomes 23 U.S.C. 
104(b)(2), and reference to 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(E) becomes 23 U.S.C. 
133(d)(4). All of these changes would be based on changes from MAP-21.
    Proposed Sec.  450.308(d) would replace the word ``would'' with the 
word ``shall'' to clarify that the requirements described in (d) are 
requirements of any simplified statement of work.
    Existing Sec.  450.308(f) would be unchanged, except FHWA and FTA 
propose remove ``.1B'' after the reference to FTA Circular C8100 and 
instead add the words ``as amended'' after the reference to FTA 
Circular C8100 to accommodate possible future editions of this 
circular. Proposed Sec.  450.308(f) would also update the title of this 
circular to reflect the most recent edition, which is called ``Program 
Guidance for Metropolitan Planning and State Planning and Research 
Program Grants.''
Section 450.310 Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation and 
Redesignation
    Existing Sec.  450.310 would be retained and revised to reflect 
changes from MAP-21, including changes to the structure of an MPO 
serving a TMA by adding representation by providers of public 
transportation to the list of officials that must be included. In 
addition, the proposed changes would move other provisions related to 
TMAs to this section. These changes, and other more minor changes, are 
described below.
    Proposed Sec.  450.310(c) is moved from existing Sec.  450.306(i) 
and would be modified to reflect changes from MAP-21. In the first 
sentence, ``designate'' would be changed to ``identify,'' and the word 
``additional'' would be deleted from this paragraph. The revisions 
would not change the meaning of this paragraph.
    Consistent with MAP-21's requirements, proposed Sec.  450.310(d)(1) 
would also require the structure of a MPO serving a TMA consist of 
representation by providers of public transportation, in addition to 
the officials identified in the existing regulations, and that each MPO 
serving a TMA satisfy the structure requirements no later than October 
1, 2014. This NPRM proposes that representatives of providers of public 
transportation would have equal decisionmaking rights and authorities 
as other officials who are on the policy board of an MPO that serves a 
TMA. It is up to the MPO, in cooperation with providers of public 
transportation, to determine how this representation will be structured 
and established. The MPOs can restructure to meet this requirement 
without being redesignated by the Governor and local officials.
    The FHWA and FTA have received several questions and comments \39\ 
generally on how an MPO serving a TMA must be structured. As a result 
of these questions and comments, FHWA and FTA are requesting comment on 
whether any of the following questions should be addressed in the 
proposed regulation and, if so, how:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ On September 30, 2013, FTA and FHWA published ``Proposed 
Policy Guidance on Metropolitan Planning Organization 
Representation'' for notice and comment. 78 FR 60015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Should the regulations clarify who appropriate 
``officials'' may be?
     Can staff members or other alternates be substituted for 
the ``officials'' identified in paragraph (d)(1)?
     Can an official in paragraph (d)(1) serve in multiple 
capacities on the MPO board, e.g., can a local elected official or 
State official also serve as a representative of a major mode of 
transportation?
     Should the regulations provide more specificity on how 
each of the officials identified in paragraph (d)(1) should be 
represented on the MPO?
     Should the regulations include more information about MPO 
structure and governance?
    To ease any necessary changes to MPO structure, the proposed rule 
includes new paragraph (d)(2), which would provide that an MPO may be 
restructured to meet the structure requirements without undergoing a 
redesignation. Since MAP-21 now provides a specific date for compliance 
with the required structure for an MPO serving a TMA, proposed new 
paragraph (d)(3) would require all the TMA MPOs to comply with this 
structure by October 1, 2014, except those MPOs that are exempt under 
23 U.S.C. 134(d)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(3). This exemption has 
existed in statute in some form since 1991. The FTA and FHWA's long-
standing interpretation of this provision is that an exemption from the 
MPO structure requirements is only appropriate for an MPO where (1) the 
MPO operates pursuant to a State law that was in effect on or before 
December 18, 1991; (2) such State law has not been amended after 
December 18, 1991, as regards to the structure or organization of the 
MPO; and (3) the MPO has not been designated or re-designated after 
December 18, 1991. An MPO that claims it qualifies for this exemption 
must self-certify its exempt status with the FTA and FHWA as part of 
the MPO certification process described at 23 CFR 450.334 or through 
some other documentation. The proposed rule would add this statutory 
provision (23 U.S.C. 134(d)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(3)) to the 
regulations.
    Existing Sec.  450.310(l)(3) adds ``described in paragraph (d).''
Section 450.312 Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries
    Proposed Sec.  450.312 describes how metropolitan planning area 
boundaries would be established by agreement between the MPO and the 
Governor. This area is the geographic area in which the MPO carries out 
the metropolitan transportation planning process. This section is 
largely unchanged, with some minor, nonsubstantive, exceptions. 
Existing paragraph (a) would be split into two paragraphs. In paragraph 
(f), ``the appropriate'' would be added before ``MPOs.'' In paragraph 
(i), ``reduces access disadvantages experienced by'' would be revised 
to ``improves access to.'' None of these revisions are intended to 
change the meaning of this section.
Section 450.314 Metropolitan Planning Agreements
    The metropolitan planning agreement helps facilitate the working 
relationship among MPOs, States, and providers of public 
transportation. Currently, MPOs, States, and providers of public 
transportation are required to form metropolitan planning agreements to 
delineate their respective responsibilities in the metropolitan 
planning process, including provisions for the cooperative development 
and sharing of information related to the formation of financial plans, 
the TIP, and the annual list of obligated projects.
    The FHWA and FTA propose to revise Sec.  450.314(a) to require that 
MPOs modify their existing metropolitan planning agreements to identify 
how the parties would work together to implement MAP-21's performance-
based planning provisions. The modified metropolitan planning 
agreements would additionally identify

[[Page 31801]]

how the MPO, State, and providers of public transportation will collect 
transportation system performance data, select performance targets for 
the metropolitan area, report metropolitan area targets, report actual 
system performance related to those targets, and collect data for asset 
management plans for the NHS. These proposed changes would make the 
metropolitan planning agreement a focal point for establishing how the 
MPO, the State, and providers of public transportation will 
cooperatively implement the performance-based planning and related 
performance management provisions in MAP-21. States, MPOs, and 
providers of public transportation would need to coordinate their 
targets in key national performance areas and document expectations for 
future performance. Also, this section proposes that the metropolitan 
planning agreement describe the collection of data for the State asset 
management plan for the NHS. The NHS is on both State and locally owned 
highways. Given multiple NHS highway ``owners,'' the agreement can 
serve as a mechanism for identifying respective roles and 
responsibilities of the State and local governments related to 
collecting data for the NHS asset management plan in metropolitan 
areas.
    Section 450.314(a) also would be revised to replace the phrase 
``public transportation operator(s)'' with ``providers of public 
transportation'' because this is the phrase used in statute. A new 
Sec.  450.314(b) would be added to require that metropolitan planning 
agreements should be reviewed periodically and updated as necessary. A 
need for changes could result from a number of factors, such as new 
Federal legislation or regulations. This is proposed to ensure that 
metropolitan planning agreements remain relevant and reflect current 
planning needs in metropolitan areas.
    Existing Sec.  450.314(d) describes the requirement for an 
agreement when more than one MPO has been designated to serve an 
urbanized area. Existing Sec.  450.314(d) would become proposed Sec.  
450.314(e), and would be unchanged with the exception that it would be 
revised to require that MPOs modify their existing metropolitan 
planning agreements to identify how the parties would work together to 
implement MAP-21's performance-based planning provisions.
    Existing Sec.  450.314(f) describes the requirement for an 
agreement when part of an urbanized area that has been designated as a 
TMA overlaps into an adjacent MPA serving an urbanized area that is not 
designated as a TMA. Existing Sec.  450.314(f) would become proposed 
Sec.  450.314(g) and would be unchanged with the exception that, 
similar to proposed Sec. Sec.  450.314(a) and 450.314(e), it would be 
revised to require that MPOs modify their existing metropolitan 
planning agreements to identify how the parties would work together to 
implement MAP-21's performance-based planning provisions. The MAP-21 
requires that the States and MPOs coordinate their targets with each 
other to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent practicable. In 
addition, for transit-related targets, MAP-21 requires States and MPOs 
to coordinate their targets relating to safety and state of good repair 
with providers of public transportation to ensure consistency with 
other performance-based provisions applicable to transit providers, to 
the maximum extent practicable. The proposed revisions to the 
metropolitan planning agreement requirements in this section are 
intended to foster State, MPO, and public transportation provider 
coordination and consistency during performance target establishment. 
Also, in the case where there are multiple MPOs serving a single 
urbanized area, the agreement established under proposed Sec.  
450.314(e) would assist with coordination among the MPOs, States, and 
providers of public transportation serving this single urbanized area 
such that the individual State and MPO targets are consistent to the 
maximum extent practicable. Similarly, the metropolitan planning 
agreement established under Sec.  450.214(f) would foster the 
development of consistent performance targets among the States, MPOs, 
and providers of public transportation in the situation where part of 
an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA overlaps into an 
adjacent MPO serving an urbanized area that is not designated as a TMA. 
This coordination should help align MPO and State decisionmaking and 
advance performance outcomes for the States.
Section 450.316 Interested Parties, Participation and Consultation
    Section 450.316 currently requires an MPO to use a documented 
participation plan to provide individuals, affected public agencies, 
representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, 
providers of freight transportation services, private providers of 
transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, 
representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle 
transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other 
interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the 
metropolitan transportation planning process. Examples of affected 
public agencies that an MPO might provide with an opportunity to be 
involved in the metropolitan planning process under Sec.  450.316(a) 
include agencies with responsibility for economic development, human 
and natural resources, environmental protection, sustainability, 
mitigation, adaptation, climate, and air quality. The participation 
plan is required to include, for example, provisions for timely notice 
of public meetings and access to information about planning issues and 
processes, publishing public information, and responding to public 
input.
    Proposed Sec.  450.316(a)(2) would be revised to change the general 
citation to the transportation conformity regulations (``40 CFR part 
93'') to the more specific regulatory citation to the provision in the 
transportation conformity regulations that addresses consultation (``40 
CFR 93.105'').
    Proposed Sec.  450.316(b)(3) would be revised to change the 
statutory reference from 23 U.S.C. 204 to 23 U.S.C. 201-204. Although 
the relevant MAP-21 provision (23 U.S.C. 134(g)(3)(B)(iii)) continues 
to reference only 23 U.S.C. 204, there were significant changes made to 
the Federal Lands Highways Program under MAP-21 and that program was 
split into several different provisions--23 U.S.C. 201-204. The 
metropolitan planning process must provide for the design and delivery 
of transportation services provided by recipients of assistance under 
all these provisions.
Section 450.318 Transportation Planning Studies and Project Development
    Existing Sec.  450.318, which largely mirrors existing Sec.  
450.212, would be retained unchanged except for the deletion of 
existing paragraph (d). The FHWA and FTA propose to delete paragraph 
(d) due to revisions made to 49 U.S.C. 5309 by MAP-21. More 
specifically, MAP-21 removed the requirement for a stand-alone 
alternatives analysis for projects that seek Section 5309(d) or (e) 
funding. The reader should refer to the discussion provided under Sec.  
450.212 for an explanation of the proposed retention.
Section 450.320 Development of Programmatic Mitigation Plans
    Proposed Sec.  450.320 would follow the same language and format as 
proposed Sec.  450.214, with the exception of changing references from 
the State or statewide to MPO or metropolitan, as

[[Page 31802]]

necessary. It would be duplicated in subpart C to avoid the need for 
cross referencing and to provide the same option for MPOs to develop 
programmatic mitigation plan(s) in the metropolitan transportation 
planning process. The reader should refer to the discussion provided 
under Sec.  450.214 for an explanation of the proposed changes.
Section 450.322 Congestion Management Process in Transportation 
Management Areas
    In TMAs, the metropolitan transportation planning process must 
include a congestion management process, 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3). The 
congestion management process provides for the effective management of 
new and existing transportation facilities through the use of travel 
demand reduction and operational strategies. When developing and 
implementing a congestion management process, MPOs may use the process 
to support the performance-based approach to transportation 
decisionmaking. Specifically, the congestion management process may 
support the performance-based approach to metropolitan transportation 
planning in this part, support applicable performance measures 
established under section 23 U.S.C. 150(c), and also support applicable 
national goals described in section 23 U.S.C. 150(b) and in 49 U.S.C. 
5301.
    Existing Sec.  450.320(b) would be revised and split into Sec.  
450.322(b) and (c). Proposed Sec.  450.322(c) would add ``and improve 
efficient service integration within and across modes, including 
highway, transit, passenger and freight rail operations, and non-
motorized transport'' to the list of strategies to manage demand and 
improve operations. This added provision would encourage States, MPOs, 
and operators of public transportation to develop multimodal strategies 
to manage demand and improve operations.
    Existing Sec.  450.320(c) would become Sec.  450.322(d) and be 
revised as follows. Paragraph (d)(1) would be revised to add 
``underlying'' before ``causes of recurring and non-recurring 
congestion'' to provide clarity with no change in meaning. Paragraph 
(d)(2) would be revised to add ``including providers of public 
transportation.'' This revision would emphasize that States and MPOs 
need to consult with local officials and operators of major modes of 
transportation, including providers of public transportation as they 
define levels of acceptable system performance as part of the 
congestion management process. This change closely tracks MAP-21's 
added provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2), which 
requires representation of providers of public transportation on MPOs.
Section 450.324 Development and Content of the Metropolitan 
Transportation Plan
    Existing Sec.  450.322 would become Sec.  450.324. It would be 
revised to reflect MAP-21's provision that each MPO must implement a 
performance-based approach in the development of its metropolitan 
transportation plan. The metropolitan transportation plan is a 
multimodal transportation plan addressing at least a 20-year planning 
horizon for the metropolitan planning area. The proposed performance-
based changes to this section would require each MPO to describe in its 
metropolitan transportation plan the performance measures and 
performance targets it used to assess the performance of its 
transportation system. The MPO must also include a system performance 
report in the plan that contains its evaluation of the condition and 
performance of the transportation system with respect to performance 
targets established to address the performance measures identified 
under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), and 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). 
The MPO must also report on the progress it achieves in meeting its 
performance targets in comparison with the system performance recorded 
in previous reports. This section is also revised to propose that MPOs 
may use scenario planning, a tool to inform decisionmakers about the 
implications of various transportation system investments and 
performance, during the development of their plan. Finally, this 
section encourages the MPO, when developing the financial plan as part 
of the long range plan, to assess the appropriateness of innovative 
finance techniques in its development of financing strategies. In 
addition, when assessing its capital investments as part of the plan, 
the MPO should consider the financial plans and investment strategies 
that are part of the State Asset Management Plan for the NHS (as 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)) and of the investment priorities of the 
public transit asset management plan (as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326). 
These changes, and other minor changes, are as follows.
    Proposed Sec.  450.324(a) would be revised to add ``In formulating 
the transportation plan, the metropolitan planning organization shall 
consider factors described in Sec.  450.306 as the factors relate to a 
20-year forecast period.'' to clarify that MPOs shall consider planning 
factors that are described in Sec.  450.306.
    Existing Sec.  450.322(b) would be retained as proposed Sec.  
450.324(b) and be revised to provide clarity by changing ``lead to'' to 
``provide for.'' Reference to ``including accessible pedestrian and 
bicycle transportation facilities'' would be added to be consistent 
with 23 U.S.C. 134(c)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(c)(2).
    Existing Sec.  450.322(f) would become Sec.  450.324(f) and be 
revised to add the MAP-21 requirements or clarify existing requirements 
for a metropolitan transportation plan, as described below.
    Existing Sec.  450.322(f)(1) would become Sec.  450.324(f)(1) and 
be revised to require that, in addition to the projected demand for 
transportation, an MPO must include the current transportation demand 
of persons and goods in the metropolitan transportation plan. This 
change would enable the public and decision makers to better understand 
existing transportation system needs.
    Existing Sec.  450.322(f)(2) would become proposed Sec.  
450.324(f)(2). It would be revised for clarity and to include MAP-21 
changes that specifically require MPOs to identify ``nonmotorized 
transportation facilities'' in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. 
While the term ``nonmotorized transportation facilities'' is added to 
reflect MAP-21, the existing regulation requires MPOs to identify 
pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities in their metropolitan 
transportation plans. To reflect this change, this paragraph would be 
revised to state ``nonmotorized transportation facilities (e.g., 
pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities).'' See 23 U.S.C. 
134(i)(2)(A)(i) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(A)(i). This section also would 
be updated to reflect that the legislation eliminated the requirement 
for an Alternatives Analysis.
    Proposed new paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) would require that MPOs 
include important elements of MAP 21's performance-based approach into 
the metropolitan transportation plan. Specifically, MAP-21 requires 
that MPOs describe performance targets, evaluate the condition and 
performance of the transportation system, and report in the 
metropolitan transportation plan on progress it has achieved toward 
their performance targets. See 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B) and (C) and 49 
U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(B) and (C).
    New paragraph (f)(3) proposes to require that an MPO describe in 
its metropolitan transportation plan the performance measures and 
performance targets that it used to assess the

[[Page 31803]]

performance of the transportation system.
    New paragraph (f)(4) proposes to require that an MPO include a 
system performance report that describes the MPO's evaluation of the 
condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to 
performance targets identified in Sec.  450.324(f)(3) and the progress 
toward the achievement of the performance targets. This section also 
proposes to require that MPOs that elect to use scenario planning 
during the development of their metropolitan transportation plans must 
also describe how the preferred scenario would improve the condition 
and performance of the transportation system and how changes in local 
development policies and investment strategies would impact the cost of 
achieving established performance targets. The option for MPOs to 
develop multiple scenarios is discussed below in proposed Sec.  
450.324(i).
    Existing Sec.  450.322(f)(5) would become Sec.  450.324(f)(7) and 
be revised to include a provision that as MPOs assess capital 
investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and projected 
metropolitan transportation infrastructure and provide for multimodal 
capacity increases, they should consider the financial plan and 
investment strategies from the newly required State asset management 
plan for the NHS (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)) and the investment 
priorities of the newly required public transit asset management plans 
(as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326). Information from these newly required 
plans can inform MPOs in their capital investment decisionmaking 
process. Furthermore, they may also consider energy plans, and 
strategies that will enhance the resiliency of the transportation 
system to current and future conditions. Such conditions could include 
severe weather events and changes in weather patterns.
    Existing Sec.  450.322(f)(9) would become proposed Sec.  
450.324(f)(8), which adds references to ``transportation alternatives'' 
and ``associated transit improvements,'' as described in 23 U.S.C. 
101(a) and 49 U.S.C. 5302(a) respectively, to reflect new programs that 
fund projects similar to those funded under the former Transportation 
Enhancements and Transit Enhancement Programs. The statute still 
requires ``transportation and transit enhancement activities'' to be 
included in a metropolitan transportation plan (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(H) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(H)).
    Existing Sec.  450.322(f)(10) would become Sec.  450.324(f)(11). In 
Sec.  450.324(f)(11)(iii), language would be added, ``the financial 
plan may include an assessment of the appropriateness of innovative 
finance techniques (for example, tolling, pricing, bonding, public 
private partnerships, or other strategies) as revenue sources for 
projects in the plan,'' in consideration of 23 U.S.C. 106(h)(3)(D), 
which encourages early consideration of innovative finance as part of a 
project financial plan. Reference to the December 11, 2007, date in 
Sec.  450.324(f)(11)(iv) would be deleted because this date has passed.
    Existing Sec.  450.322(h) would become Sec.  450.324(h) and would 
be revised to state that MPOs should integrate into the metropolitan 
transportation plan the goals, objectives, performance measures, and 
strategies described in the HSIP, including in the SHSP required under 
23 U.S.C. 148 and the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan required 
under 49 U.S.C. 5329, the FHWA and FTA propose removing reference to 
the term ``targets'' because MPOs would be required to integrate 
targets from these plans and processes into the transportation planning 
process under proposed Sec.  450.306(d).
    Consistent with MAP-21, the proposed Sec.  450.324(i) would 
encourage MPOs to elect to undertake scenario planning as part of the 
development of the metropolitan transportation plan. Scenario planning 
is an analytical tool that provides a framework for developing a shared 
vision of the future. It informs decisionmakers and the public about 
the potential implications of various investments and policies on 
transportation system condition and performance. Scenario planning is 
currently used by many MPOs as part of their transportation planning 
process and FHWA and FTA consider it a best practice. This proposed 
section describes the suggested framework that MPOs may follow as they 
develop those scenarios including potential regional investment 
strategies, alternative distributions of population and employment, 
land use, future climate scenarios, system performance measures 
including locally developed measures, and the relationship among a 
wider array of investments and local priorities. See 23 U.S.C. 
134(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4).
    Existing Sec.  450.322(l) would be retained and revised and become 
proposed Sec.  450.324(m). Language would be added to describe the 12-
month conformity lapse grace period in accordance with the Clean Air 
Act and the transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, 
subpart A). This change would be included here because it provides a 
grace period of up to 1 year before the existing conformity 
determination on the metropolitan plan will lapse. Specific information 
on conformity lapse grace period can be found in the transportation 
conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.104.\40\ The FHWA and FTA propose 
these revisions to incorporate the changes to the conformity 
regulations that have occurred since the last revisions to 23 CFR part 
450. In addition, the general reference to the interagency consultation 
definition in ``40 CFR part 93'' would be replaced with the more 
specific citation at ``40 CFR 93.105.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ For more information please see Transportation Conformity 
Rule Amendments to Implement Provisions contained in the 2005 Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU), 73 FR 4420, 4423 (Jan. 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 450.326 Development and Content of the Transportation 
Improvement Program (TIP)
    Existing Sec.  450.324 would become Sec.  450.326 and would 
describe the development and the content of the TIP. The TIP is the 
prioritized program of transportation projects covering a period of 4 
years that is developed and adopted by the MPO and approved by the 
Governor. This section would be revised to incorporate MAP-21's 
transformation of the planning and programming process to a 
performance-based planning and programming process (see proposed new 
paragraphs (c) and (d)) as well as other minor changes. The proposed 
revisions are as follows.
    Proposed Sec.  450.326(a) would be revised to add one of the MAP-21 
general requirements for a TIP--that the TIP ``shall reflect the 
investment priorities established in the current metropolitan 
transportation plan.'' See 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(1)(A)(ii) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(j)(1)(A)(ii).
    The FHWA and FTA propose to incorporate MAP-21 requirements for a 
performance-based TIP in proposed new Sec.  450.326(c) and new Sec.  
450.326(d). See 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(1)(A) and (j)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(j)(1)(A) and (j)(2)(D). Proposed paragraph (c) would require that 
MPOs design TIPs that make progress toward achieving MPO performance 
targets. Importantly, proposed paragraph (d) would require the TIP 
describe how the projects in the TIP would achieve the MPO performance 
targets--linking investment priorities to those targets. Because the 
development of a TIP is a public process, these new requirements would 
promote greater accountability and transparency of transportation 
investment decisions.

[[Page 31804]]

    Existing Sec.  450.324(c) would become Sec.  450.326(e) and be 
revised to reflect MAP-21 changes to programs, phrases, and plans. 
Those changes are ``transportation enhancements'' would become 
``transportation alternatives,'' and ``transit enhancements'' would 
become ``associated transit improvements.'' ``Strategic Highway Safety 
Plan'' would be updated to become the ``Highway Safety Improvement 
Program'' since the HSIP is the safety funding program associated with 
funding safety projects in the TIP. ``Federal Lands Highway Program'' 
would be changed to ``Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands 
Transportation Program, and Federal Lands Access Program'' to reflect 
MAP-21 changes to 23 U.S.C. 201-204. In addition, ``accessible'' would 
be added before ``pedestrian walkways.'' Statutory citations referenced 
in proposed Sec.  450.326(e)(2) would be changed as follows: 23 U.S.C. 
104(f) becomes 23 U.S.C. 104(d), and 49 U.S.C. 5339 is deleted. Under 
proposed Sec.  450.326(e)(4), ``National Highway System'' and ``Equity 
Bonus'' would be deleted because the programs are not continued under 
MAP-21, and eligibility is not continued under the NHPP program that 
replaced the NHS program. In addition ``State planning and research 
projects'' is replaced with ``metropolitan planning projects'' to 
correct an error in the existing regulations. Because of the creation 
of FTA's emergency relief funding program, FHWA and FTA want to clarify 
that Sec.  450.324(c)(5), which indicates that emergency relief 
projects meeting certain conditions are not required to be included in 
the TIP, would not apply to resiliency projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 
5324.
    Existing Sec.  450.324(f) would become proposed Sec.  450.326(h) 
and be updated to add ``subpart A'' after the second reference to ``40 
CFR part 93'' to be more specific regarding the citation for the 
transportation conformity regulations.
    Existing Sec.  450.324(h) would become Sec.  450.326(j) and be 
unchanged, except that the reference to 270 days after the effective 
date of the old rule would be deleted because this date has passed and 
reference to ``(but is not required to)'' after the word ``may'' would 
be deleted because it is redundant.
    Consistent with the new requirements to integrate elements of other 
performance-based plans into the metropolitan transportation planning 
process as described above, a new paragraph (m) would be added to 
indicate that the TIP should be informed by the financial plan and 
investment strategies from the State asset management plan for the NHS 
and the public transit asset management plan. See 23 U.S.C. 
134(h)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(C). The financial plan of the 
State asset management plan for the NHS and the investment strategies 
of the public transit asset management plan are elements of new 
performance-based plans required under MAP-21. The FHWA and FTA propose 
in this section that MPOs consider these elements as part of the 
investment decisionmaking process to inform the TIP.
    Existing Sec.  450.324(k) would be deleted because the topic is 
addressed in proposed Sec.  450.324(j).
    Existing Sec.  450.324(m) would become proposed Sec.  450.326(p) 
and be revised to include language describing the 12-month conformity 
lapse grace period in accordance with the Clean Air Act and the 
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). This 
change would be included here because it provides a grace period of up 
to 1 year before the existing conformity determination on the TIP will 
lapse. Specific information on conformity lapse grace period can be 
found in the transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.104. In 
addition, the general reference to the interagency consultation 
definition in ``40 CFR part 93'' would be replaced with the more 
specific citation at ``40 CFR 93.105.''
Section 450.332 Project Selection From the TIP
    Existing Sec.  450.330 would become proposed Sec.  450.332. 
References to projects funded under the Bridge or Interstate 
maintenance programs would be removed because these programs were 
eliminated in MAP-21. Also, ``Federal Lands Highway Program'' would be 
changed to ``Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands 
Transportation Program, and Federal Lands Access Program'' to reflect 
MAP-21 changes to 23 U.S.C. 201-204.
Section 450.336 Certifications and Federal Certifications
    Existing Sec.  450.334 would be retained and become Sec.  450.336. 
Proposed Sec.  450.336 describes the long-standing requirement that the 
State and the MPO(s) would periodically certify that the metropolitan 
transportation planning process is being carried out in accordance with 
all applicable requirements and goes on to specifically describe what 
the applicable requirements are.
    The only change to this section would be updating reference in 
Sec.  450.336(a)(5) from the SAFETEA-LU provision to the successor 
provision in MAP-21.
    The MPO self-certifications and Federal certifications of the 
planning process in TMA areas would continue to be based on meeting the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303, subject to the phase-
in requirements discussed in proposed Sec.  450.340, and include 
meeting the requirements of the MAP-21 planning provisions implemented 
through this regulation. Some of the new planning requirements under 
Titles 23 and 49, which MPOs would have to meet to self-certify, would 
include the performance-based planning requirements. As part of the 
self-certification, larger MPOs would also certify that they are 
meeting the new requirements for MPO policy board representation in TMA 
areas. The FHWA and FTA would review that TMAs are meeting these 
requirements during FHWA and FTA certification reviews. The FHWA and 
FTA would conduct a certification review of each TMA at least once 
every 4 years.
Section 450.340 Phase-In of New Requirements
    For purposes of phasing in the MAP-21 requirements, there are two 
categories of changes. The first category is those changes that are 
unrelated to performance management, and the second category is those 
changes that are performance management based. The FHWA and FTA propose 
two different phase-in schedules, one for each category of changes.
    The proposed changes to this section are similar to the changes 
made to the phase-in requirements for the statewide and nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning provisions in proposed 23 CFR 450.226. With 
respect to any non-performance management changes, FHWA and FTA propose 
that the MPOs should follow the same phase-in requirements as the 
States, including not deviating from their established planning update 
cycle to implement the changes required by MAP-21 to the planning 
process. The structure of the planning requirements is based on 
integrated statewide and metropolitan planning processes. If the 
metropolitan planning process had a different phase-in schedule than 
the statewide planning process, the integration of the two processes 
would be eroded. There are provisions throughout the statute and 
regulations that support this proposal and demonstrate how the 
processes are integrated, including:
     23 U.S.C. 135(b)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(b)(1) require the 
State to coordinate planning carried out under the statewide and 
nonmetropolitan provisions with the transportation

[[Page 31805]]

planning activities carried out under the metropolitan planning 
provisions.
     Existing regulations (23 CFR 450.216(b)) require that the 
TIP be included without change in the STIP, directly or by reference, 
after approval of the TIP by the MPO and the Governor.
     Existing regulations (23 CFR 450.218) provide that the 
State shall certify that the transportation planning process is carried 
out in accordance with the applicable metropolitan and statewide 
planning requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 
5304.
     In 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, 
there are requirements that either the MPO cooperate with the State on 
the development of the MPO financial plan and the TIP or that the State 
cooperate with the MPO in development of the statewide transportation 
plan and the STIP.
    Because of all of these requirements to cooperate in the 
development of documents and to consider the planning processes 
together, FHWA and FTA determined that it is important that both the 
metropolitan and the statewide and nonmetropolitan processes have 
similar phase-in requirements. The MPOs, as well as States, also would 
have the option of developing any planning products consistent with the 
new regulatory requirements immediately upon issuance of the planning 
final rule.
    With respect to any performance management changes, the MPOs would 
still need to consider the timing of implementing the new performance-
based planning requirements (e.g., new requirements for the 
Metropolitan Planning Agreement).

Appendix A--Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes

    The Agencies propose to retain Appendix A, which will continue to 
be referenced in Sec. Sec.  450.212 and 450.318. References to 
Alternatives Analysis studies as required for funding under 49 U.S.C. 
5309 are proposed to be removed pursuant to the elimination of that 
requirement by MAP-21. References to Alternatives Analysis studies as 
optional tools for linking planning with the environmental process will 
be retained, as these studies may still be completed by project 
sponsors at their option.

49 CFR Part 613

    This section would be revised to refer to the proposed regulations 
in 23 CFR part 450. Because FHWA and the FTA jointly administer the 
transportation planning and programming process, we propose to keep the 
regulations identical.

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    All comments received on or before the close of business on the 
comment closing date indicated above will be considered and available 
for examination in the docket at the location specified in the 
ADDRESSES section above. Comments received after the comment closing 
date will be filed in the docket and 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), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA and FTA have determined preliminarily that this rulemaking 
would be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12866, and is significant under DOT regulatory policies 
and procedures because of substantial State, congressional, local 
government, 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. The changes proposed herein would add 
new analysis, coordination, and documentation requirements (e.g., 
performance-based planning and programming, cooperation with local 
officials responsible for transportation or, if applicable, RTPOs, and 
new requirements for TMA MPO policy board membership). In preparing 
this proposal, FHWA and FTA have sought to maintain existing 
flexibility of operation wherever possible for States, MPOs, and other 
affected organizations, and to use existing processes to accomplish any 
new tasks or activities.
    The FHWA and FTA have conducted a cost analysis identifying each of 
the proposed regulatory changes that would have a significant cost 
impact for MPOs, States, or providers of public transportation, and 
have estimated those costs on an annual basis. This cost analysis is 
included as a separate document, entitled ``Regulatory Cost Analysis of 
Proposed Rulemaking,'' and is available for review in the docket.
    The FHWA and FTA do not have specific data to assess the monetary 
value of the benefits to the proposed changes to the planning process 
made by this rule. The FHWA and FTA have not been able to find data or 
empirical studies to assist it in monetizing or quantifying the 
benefits of this NPRM. In addition, estimates of the benefits of this 
NPRM would be difficult to develop. The FHWA and FTA expect that the 
proposed regulatory changes to the planning process would improve 
decisionmaking through increased transparency and accountability and 
support the national goals described in 23 U.S.C. 150(b) and 49 U.S.C. 
5301. The proposal would promote transparency by requiring 
establishment of performance targets in key areas, such as safety, 
infrastructure condition, system reliability, emissions, and 
congestion, and by expressly linking investment decisions to the 
achievement of such targets. This would be documented in plans 
developed with public review. The proposal would promote accountability 
through mandating reports on progress toward meeting those targets. The 
FHWA and FTA expect that the proposed regulatory changes to the 
planning process would support the national goals described in 23 
U.S.C. 150(b) and 49 U.S.C. 5301.
    Beyond improved transparency and accountability, there are several 
other benefits of the proposal. Other elements of the proposal may 
improve decisionmaking, such as representation by providers of public 
transportation on each MPO that serves a TMA, updating the metropolitan 
planning agreements, requiring States to have a higher level of 
involvement with nonmetropolitan local officials, and providing an 
optional process for the creation of RTPOs. The proposal may enhance 
the statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning process by 
requiring State DOTs to cooperate with nonmetropolitan local officials 
or RTPOs, if applicable, when conducting rural transportation planning 
giving the local officials or RTPOs a stronger voice in the development 
of planning products and project selection. The proposed option for 
MPOs to use scenario planning in the development of their metropolitan 
transportation plans provides MPOs a framework for improved 
decisionmaking through comparison of the performance tradeoffs of 
various locally determined scenarios for transportation investment. 
Although conducting scenario planning entails costs, savings from 
improved implementation could offset these costs. These benefits will 
improve the transportation planning process. The FHWA and the FTA 
invite comments on

[[Page 31806]]

the potential costs and benefits that might be associated with the 
option for MPOs to use scenario planning during development of the 
metropolitan transportation plan.
    The proposed option for State DOTs and MPOs to develop a 
programmatic mitigation plan as part of the statewide and the 
metropolitan transportation planning processes provides a framework 
whereby States and MPOs may identify environmental resources early in 
the planning process and as a result, potentially minimize or avoid 
impacts to these resources. This has the potential to streamline 
project development and to protect environmental resources and may have 
benefits that outweigh the costs of performing the analysis. The FHWA 
and the FTA invite comments on the potential costs and benefits that 
might be associated with the option for States and MPOs to develop a 
programmatic mitigation plan as part of the statewide or metropolitan 
transportation planning process.
    Based on the cost analysis, we estimate the total cost of this 
proposed rule is $30.8 million. Of this total, the estimated costs for 
all 52 States \41\ and an estimated 420 MPOs would be approximately 
$28.3 million per year. Eighty percent of these costs are directly 
reimbursable through Federal transportation funds allocated for 
metropolitan planning (23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)) and for 
State planning and research (23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5313). The 
estimated cost to 600 providers of public transportation would be 
approximately $2.4 million per year. Eighty percent of these costs are 
directly reimbursable through Federal transportation funds allocated 
for urbanized area formula grants (4 U.S.C. 5307, 49 U.S.C. 5311).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ This number (52 States) includes the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This is consistent with the 
definition of ``States'' in the current and proposed regulations at 
23 CFR 450.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MAP-21 did not significantly increase the mandatory set-aside 
in Federal funds for metropolitan transportation planning, as well as 
Statewide Planning and Research funding. The States, providers of 
public transportation, and MPOs have the flexibility to use certain 
other categories of Federal highway dollars for transportation 
planning, such as Surface Transportation Program funds, if they so 
desire. Consequently, the increase in non-Federal cost burden 
attributable to this proposed rulemaking is estimated to be only $6.2 
million per year in total. The total Federal, State, and local cost of 
the planning program is $1,166,471,400. As the cost burden of this rule 
is estimated to be 2.6 percent of the total planning program, we 
believe that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal 
and the benefits of implementing this rulemaking would outweigh the 
costs.
    The FHWA and FTA welcome comments on the economic impacts of these 
proposed regulations. Comments, including those from the State DOTs, 
providers of public transportation, 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. The FHWA and FTA encourage comments on all facets of this 
proposal regarding its costs, burdens, and impacts.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354; 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA and FTA have determined that States and 
metropolitan planning organizations are not included in the definition 
of a small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Small governmental 
jurisdictions are limited to representations of populations of less 
than 50,000. Metropolitan planning organizations, by definition, 
represent urbanized areas having a minimum population of 50,000. 
Because the regulations are primarily intended for States and MPOs, 
FHWA and FTA have determined that the action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Therefore, I hereby certify that the action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 
1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule would not result in the 
expenditure of non-Federal funds by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1 
million in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Eighty percent of the costs 
attributable to this rulemaking are directly reimbursable through 
Federal transportation funds allocated for metropolitan planning (23 
U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)) and for State planning and 
research (23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5313).
    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 
Federal Transit Act permit this type of flexibility to the States.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this proposed action in accordance 
with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and 
have determined that this proposed action would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
assessment. The FHWA and FTA do not believe that this rulemaking will 
have substantial, direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The FHWA and FTA have also determined that this proposed action would 
not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability 
to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Comment is 
solicited specifically on the federalism implications of this proposal.

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 and were carried out as part of the 
outreach on the federalism implications of this rulemaking. This EO 
applies because State and local governments would be directly affected 
by the proposed regulation, which is a condition on Federal highway 
funding. The FHWA and the FTA solicit comments on this issue.

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) prior to conducting or sponsoring a 
collection of information. The FHWA and FTA have determined that this 
proposal contains collections of information for the purposes of the 
PRA. The reporting requirements for metropolitan planning unified 
planning work programs (UPWPs), transportation plans, and TIPs are 
currently approved

[[Page 31807]]

under OMB control number 2132-0529. Separately, FHWA is updating the 
information reporting requirements for State planning and research work 
programs, which has been approved by the OMB under control number 2125-
0039. These State planning and research work program are governed under 
a separate regulation at 23 CFR 420. The FHWA is updating 23 CFR 420 
and will be issuing a separate NPRM for it soon. The FTA conducted the 
analysis supporting this approval on behalf of both FTA and 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. Because approval for the 
FHWA and FTA collection will soon be expiring, both agencies are 
seeking renewed approval for its existing collection.
    The paragraphs below describe the burden analysis conducted by FHWA 
and the FTA for the existing planning requirements in this proposed 
regulation which remain unchanged from SAFETEA-LU and were carried over 
from the existing regulation. It serves as a baseline burden analysis 
(analysis of the burden to implement elements of the existing 
regulations which were carried over from the existing regulation into 
these proposed regulations without change). It is followed by a 
description of the burden analysis for the new (changed) planning 
requirements proposed by this NPRM, which resulted from the passage of 
MAP-21.
Burden Analysis for the Existing Planning Requirements (Baseline Burden 
Analysis)
    The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) identifies transportation 
planning activities in metropolitan areas and supports the request for 
funding to support the work under both FTA and FHWA planning programs 
in metropolitan areas. A similar listing of planning activities is 
prepared on a statewide level as the basis for FTA and FHWA SP&R 
funding. The metropolitan plan and statewide plan reflect the long 
range goals and objectives determined through the metropolitan and 
statewide transportation planning processes respectively and have a 20-
year planning horizon. The TIP and STIP are short-range multiyear 
listings (4 years) of highway and transit improvement projects which 
are consistent with the metropolitan and statewide plans and which 
support the request for, and receipt of, Federal transportation funding 
under Title 23 U.S.C. and Chapter 53 of Title 49 U.S.C.
    The FTA and FHWA jointly carry out the Federal mandate to improve 
metropolitan and statewide transportation under authority of Title 49, 
Chapter 53, and Title 23 U.S.C. Sections 5305(g) of Title 49 and 104(f) 
of Title 23 authorize funds to support transportation planning at 
metropolitan and statewide levels. As a condition to receive Title 49, 
Chapter 53, and Title 23 funding, requirements are established for 
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning under Sections 5303 
and 5304 of Title 49 and Sections 134 and 135 of Title 23 that call for 
development of transportation plans and transportation improvement 
programs in all States and metropolitan areas. The information 
collection activities necessary to prepare federally required plans and 
programs, and the supporting planning studies proposed for funding in 
UPWPs and under the SP&R work programs are necessary to monitor and 
evaluate current and projected usage and performance of transportation 
systems nationwide--in each urbanized area and throughout every State.
    The metropolitan transportation plan and TIP are required by 49 
U.S.C. 5303 and 23 U.S.C. 134, which state that ``metropolitan planning 
organizations, in cooperation with the State, shall develop 
transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the State.'' 
Sections 49 U.S.C. 5304 and 23 U.S.C. 135 require that each ``State 
shall develop a long-range transportation plan and STIP for all areas 
of the State.'' Both statutory sections require that ``the process for 
developing such plans and programs shall provide for consideration of 
all modes of transportation and shall be continuing, cooperative, and 
comprehensive.'' The MPOs and States use metropolitan and statewide 
plans, TIPs, and STIPs as the basis for investing Federal and non-
Federal capital funds for transportation infrastructure investments. 
(Note: Paperwork Reduction Act requirements for preparation of the STIP 
are covered by OMB control number 2125-0039.)
    Part 450, title 23, Code of Federal Regulations implements these 
statutory requirements. (Note: 23 CFR part 450 is identical to, and 
cross-referenced by, the equivalent regulation in Title 49, 49 CFR part 
613.) The MPO, together with the State and public transportation 
operators, prepares plans for each urbanized area, while the State 
develops a statewide plan, which, in metropolitan areas, is developed 
in cooperation with affected MPOs. These plans form the basis for 
development of TIPs and STIPs, the short-range programming documents 
for federally funded transportation capital investments.
    A UPWP is required by 23 CFR 450.308 for all MPOs in TMAs. The MPOs 
in urbanized areas of less than 200,000 population, with prior approval 
by the State, FTA, and FHWA, may use a simplified statement of work as 
their planning grant application instead of developing a full UPWP. 
Details of the required planning processes supported by FTA and FHWA 
metropolitan planning funds, as required by Section 5303 of Title 49 
U.S.C. and 23 U.S.C. 134, are set out in 23 CFR part 450. The planning 
grant application is based upon the UPWP and is the mechanism by which 
grantees request Federal funding. The information contained in the UPWP 
is necessary to establish the eligibility of the activities for which 
funding is being requested.
    Preparation of UPWPs, project listing for SP&R funding, 
metropolitan and statewide plans, TIPs, and STIPs are essential 
components of decisionmaking by State and local officials for planning 
and programming Federal transportation dollars to support the priority 
transportation investment needs of their areas. In addition to serving 
as the grant application by States for FHWA and FTA planning funds in 
metropolitan areas, UPWPs are used by FTA and FHWA on a national scale 
to establish national out year budgets and regional program plans, 
develop policy on using funds, monitor State and local consistency with 
national planning and technical emphasis areas, respond to 
congressional inquiries, prepare congressional testimony, and ensure 
efficiency in the use and expenditure of Federal funds by determining 
that planning proposals are reasonable, cost effective, and supportive 
of full compliance with all applicable Federal law and regulations.
    Sections 5303 and 5304 of 49 U.S.C. and Sections 134 and 135 of 23 
U.S.C. require the development of plans and programs in all urbanized 
areas and entire States respectively. After approval by the Governor 
and MPO, metropolitan TIPs in attainment areas are to be incorporated 
directly into the STIP. For nonattainment and maintenance areas, as 
required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, FTA and FHWA must 
make a conformity finding on these areas' plans and TIPs before TIPs 
are incorporated into STIPs.
    The complete STIP is then jointly reviewed and approved (or 
disapproved) by FTA and FHWA. With that action comes a joint 
determination, or finding, by FTA and FHWA that metropolitan and 
statewide planning

[[Page 31808]]

processes are in compliance with all applicable Federal laws and 
regulations. These planning ``findings,'' conformity determinations, 
and approval actions constitute the determination that State and 
metropolitan area transportation planning processes are complying with 
Federal law and regulatory requirements as a condition of eligibility 
for receiving Federal-aid. Without the supporting documents, these 
``findings'' and planning approvals cannot be made as the basis for 
making project-level grant awards. Since a STIP/TIP is made up of 
various types of capital and non-capital surface transportation 
projects, from equipment acquisition to major highway and transitway 
construction, it is essential that these projects be identified and 
described. Estimated cost--since the STIP/TIP is the basis for 
subsequent programming and obligation of both Federal-aid highway and 
FTA capital funds, there must be an indication of project cost and 
Federal funds required. Source of Federal funds--The STIP/TIP is an 
integrated FTA/FHWA program. Because both agencies have several 
statutory sources of funds, each with different eligibility 
requirements, it is necessary to know what projects are proposed to be 
funded from which fund. Identification of the recipient--because the 
STIP/TIP is an integrated program of highway and transit improvements, 
many potential capital grant recipients have projects included in the 
document. For FTA funding, it is necessary that each individual project 
be identified as to the likely capital grant applicant. The STIP/TIP 
requirement reduces the burden to potential capital grant applicants by 
imposing the programming requirements at one point and setting one 
response to these requirements.
    The SP&R program, UPWP, metropolitan and statewide plan, TIP, and 
STIP are adaptable to computer generation and revision. Both FTA and 
FHWA have extensive technical assistance programs encouraging 
application of computer techniques. These programs reduce burden by 
achieving time-savings in technical analysis, report revisions, and 
clerical activities through automation.
    While the transit and highway funding programs for planning and 
project implementation are unique to FTA and FHWA, FTA and FHWA 
cooperate to avoid duplication of effort. Most visible is consolidating 
FTA and FHWA statutory requirements for planning through the issuance 
of joint planning regulations. The MPOs and States prepare a single set 
of UPWPs, plans, TIPs, and STIPs to satisfy both FTA and FHWA 
requirements.
    The information contained in projects proposed for funding under 
the SP&R programs, UPWPs, metropolitan and State plans, TIPs, and STIPs 
are not contained in any other federally required document. However, 
where this information is already contained in State and local planning 
documents, FHWA and FTA can accept those documents provided that all 
FHWA and FTA requirements are met, thus further reducing any 
duplication and unnecessary burden. The SP&R programs, statewide plans, 
STIPs, UPWPs, metropolitan plans and TIPs have been submitted to FTA 
and FHWA for many years to support funding of the transportation 
planning and capital improvement programs for urbanized and non-
urbanized areas. Continuing contact between each of FTA's grantees and 
FTA regional staff as well as FHWA's division office staff and State 
DOTs and MPOs provides opportunity for grantees to seek changes. No 
major problems have developed regarding this requirement. The FHWA and 
the FTA have not received a petition to establish, amend, or repeal a 
regulation pursuant to 49 CFR 106.31. A 60-day Federal Register Notice 
on information collection was published on November 22, 2013 (78 FR 
70094), soliciting comments prior to submission to OMB. The DOT 
received comments from the Florida Department of Transportation and the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO). Both expressed concern that many respondents will exceed the 
8,017 burden hours per respondent estimated in the Notice of Request 
for Revision of an Approved Information Collection. The DOT concurs 
that some States and MPOs may exceed the estimated 8,017 average burden 
hours to meet the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning 
requirements. This is because the burden hour estimate based upon the 
average for all MPOs and States.
    A 30-day Federal Register notice was published on January 29, 2014 
(79 FR 4808).
    The following summarizes in tabular form the estimated burden hours 
for the collection of information for the purposes of developing and 
completing UPWPs, metropolitan and statewide transportation plans, and 
TIPs/STIPs and an explanation of the methodology used to calculate the 
number of hours required per submission.

                           Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs)--Current Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
     Urbanized area (UZA) population      Total number  of    Burden annual       hours per       Burden hours
                                              entities         submissions       submission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 200,000...........................               210               210               200            63,000
Over 200,000............................               210               210               300            42,000
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................               420               420  ................           105,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs and STIPs)--Current Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of      Average  annual    Burden  hours     Total  annual
                 Entity                       entities         submissions     per  submission    burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPOs in Attainment Areas................               181                45             8,135           366,066
MPOs in Nonattainment and Maintenance                  239                60            11,330           679,837
 Areas..................................
State DOTs..............................                52                13            17,868           232,284
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................               472               118  ................         1,278,187
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31809]]


                                    Transportation Plans--Current Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of      Average  annual    Burden  hours     Total annual
                 Entity                       entities         submissions     per  submission    burden  hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPOs in Attainment Areas................               181                36            19,503           702,092
MPOs in Nonattainment or Maintenance                   239                60            21,731         1,303,885
 Areas..................................
State DOTs..............................                52                13            30,068           390,881
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................               472               109  ................         2,396,858
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondent's cost is the cost of the MPOs' and State agencies' 
staff time required to compile and produce the UPWP. The UPWPs must be 
developed identifying work activities over the next 1- or 2-year 
period. Given the complex nature of the planning requirements, we 
estimate that an average of 300 hours per respondent will be required 
by MPOs to prepare UPWPs in TMAs and 200 hours per respondent in non-
TMAs. Note that although 23 CFR 450.308 allows MPOs in the 210 non-TMAs 
to prepare simplified statements of work, FTA and FHWA know of no MPOs 
that are developing such simplified statements. Using a staff salary of 
$31.62 (based on annual staff salary of $65,760) per hour total 
respondent cost is estimated at $3,320,100. Assuming a 54 percent 
overhead rate, the total annualized cost with overhead is estimated to 
be $5,112,954.
    The OMB has previously approved the burden on respondents to 
develop State (SPR) work programs under FHWA control number 2125-0039.
    Metropolitan TIPs are prepared by MPOs in cooperation with the 
State and local public transportation operators. The TIPs are required 
every 4 years; plans in nonattainment and maintenance areas must be 
updated and submitted to FTA/FHWA every 4 years and in attainment areas 
every 5 years. Although the requirements for metropolitan TIPs and 
plans, particularly in nonattainment and maintenance areas, are 
complex, current burden estimates have been generated from past 
experiences, informal discussion with both FTA/FHWA field staff and 
respondents, and a comparison of recent trends in the allocation of 
resources by respondents to meet the requirements. We estimate that 
MPOs in attainment areas will spend approximately 8,135 person hours in 
the development of the TIP document. Furthermore, considering the more 
stringent requirements relating to the implementation of Transportation 
Control Measures in nonattainment and maintenance areas and the fact 
that most of these areas are in the Nation's largest metropolitan areas 
with the most projects to program, we estimate that an average of 
11,330 person hours per submission are required for these TIPs.
    The development by States of a STIP draws heavily on the work 
cooperatively done by MPOs and States in the preparation of 
metropolitan TIPs. This work burden has already been calculated in this 
section; however, to the extent that STIPs must reflect the programming 
of transportation projects in nonmetropolitan areas, there exists some 
marginal burden in the development of the overall statewide program. We 
estimate that burden at 17,868 person hours is required for each STIP.
    Total respondent burden hours for the TIP/STIP development is 
estimated to be 1,278,187. Total respondent cost for TIP/STIP 
development without overhead is estimated to be $40,416,518. Total 
respondent cost for TIP/STIP development assuming a 54 percent overhead 
rate is estimated to be $62,241,438. The Joint Planning Regulations 
require that plans in nonattainment and maintenance areas be updated 
and submitted to FTA/FHWA every 4 years and that plans in attainment 
areas be updated every 5 years. The development by States of a 
statewide plan draws heavily on the work cooperatively done by MPOs and 
States in the preparation of metropolitan TIPs and plans. This work 
burden has already been calculated in this section; however, to the 
extent that statewide plans must reflect the planning of transportation 
projects in nonmetropolitan areas, there exists some marginal burden in 
the development of the overall plan. We estimate that burden at 21,731 
person hours are required for the preparation of the plan in a non-
attainment area. These plans are updated every 4 years. We estimate 
that burden at 19,503 person hours are required for the preparation of 
the plan in an attainment area. These plans are updated every 5 years. 
Assuming an average rate of $31.62/hour we estimate that the respondent 
cost for the metropolitan plan is $63,428,993 and for the statewide 
plan is $12,359,657.
    Total respondent burden hours for the plan development by States 
and MPOs is estimated to be 2,396,858. Total respondent cost for plan 
development without overhead is estimated to be $75,788,650. Total 
respondent cost for plan development assuming a 54 percent overhead 
rate is estimated to be $116,714,521.
    There are no capital or start-up costs associated directly with the 
collection of information required by the UPWPs, TIPs/STIPs, and plans. 
Any capital equipment used to provide this information in most cases 
would have been purchased to carry out general transportation and air 
quality planning activities. The total annual overhead (operation and 
maintenance costs) of providing the requested information is 
$64,459,978 as calculated in the table below:

          Total Annual Burden Costs to the MPOs and the States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Total costs
                  Task                      Total costs       without
                                           with overhead     overhead
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPWP....................................      $5,112,954      $3,320,100
TIP.....................................      50,925,017      33,071,100
Metropolitan Plans......................      97,671,020      63,428,993
STIPs...................................      11,309,908       7,344,820
Statewide Plans.........................      19,031,996      12,359,657
                                         -------------------------------

[[Page 31810]]

 
    Total...............................     184,050,895     119,525,023
------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Total Annual Burden Hours to the MPOs and the States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Total  burden
                          Task                                 hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPWP....................................................         105,000
TIP.....................................................       1,045,892
Metropolitan Plans......................................       2,005,977
STIPs...................................................         232,284
Statewide Plans.........................................         390,881
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................       3,780,045
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that each State DOT also submits a statewide planning 
and research work program, which serves as the basis of the State's 
application for Federal financial assistance for planning and research 
activities. The information collection requirements of the State 
planning and research work program have been previously approved by OMB 
under FHWA control number 2125-0039.
    This justification includes estimates of burden hours and costs to 
complete the major planning products required by the Statewide and 
Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning and Metropolitan Transportation 
Planning regulations that are significantly different than the 
estimates provided in the previous four information collection 
justifications submitted to OMB. The estimates included in this 
justification reflect the baseline estimates of burden hours and costs 
developed for the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) prepared as part of 
this Joint NPRM for the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Program 
and the Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Planning Program to implement 
provisions of MAP-21. To develop the baseline for the RIA, FHWA and FTA 
estimated the current average costs for specific MPO planning functions 
on the basis of costs identified through a sample of MPO annual work 
programs. The FHWA and FTA sampled a total of 17 TMAs and 12 non-TMA 
MPOs and used this sample to calculate costs for States and MPOs. 
Historically, FTA and FHWA have used an estimation methodology, not 
based on sampling, to estimate the burden hours required of MPOs and 
States to meet the planning requirements. This methodology assumed very 
limited increase in the costs of developing the planning products.
Additional Burden Hours Associated With These Proposed Rules
    The FHWA and FTA conducted an analysis of the additional annual 
burden hours of work for the States, MPOs, and providers of public 
transportation that are associated with their implementation of the 
proposed changes to the planning process. The proposed changes to the 
planning process that impact the average annual burden hours of effort 
include: A transition to a performance-based (statewide and 
metropolitan) planning and programming process, cooperation by the 
State with local officials or RTPOs, if applicable, when conducting the 
statewide transportation planning process, and including representation 
by providers of public transportation on MPOs that serve TMAs. The FHWA 
and the FTA assumed that this additional work will increase the annual 
cost of preparing a long-range transportation plan and STIP/TIP by the 
State, the MPOs, and the providers of public transportation by 15 
percent, on average. These burden hours of effort were calculated using 
the same labor wage rates and overhead rates that were used in the 
baseline paperwork reduction act analysis.

  Summary of Average Annual Regulatory Costs and Burden Hours of Effort Resulting From the Changes Proposed in
                                                    This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Average
                                                                  Total          Non-Federal       additional
                          Entity                             additional cost     share (20%)    person hours per
                                                                                                     agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMA MPOs (210)............................................       $18,402,300        $3,680,500             1,800
Non-TMA MPOs (210)........................................         3,909,200           781,800               400
States (52)...............................................         6,075,800         1,215,200             2,400
Providers of Public Transportation (600)..................         2,440,000           488,000               100
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................        30,827,300         6,165,500  ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the above table, the proposed changes to the rule would 
have a total estimated cost increase of $30,827,300 per year for the 
States, MPOs, and providers of public transportation. When converted to 
burden hours, that equates to an additional 1,800 hours of annual 
burden for each TMA MPO, 400 additional hours of annual burden hours 
for each non TMA-MPO, 2,400 annual burden hours for each State, and 100 
annual burden hours for each provider of public transportation.
FHWA and FTA Seek Public Comments on the Information Collection 
Associated With These Proposed Rules
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed 
collection is necessary for the DOT's performance; (2) the accuracy of 
the estimated burdens; (3) ways for the DOT to enhance the quality, 
usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that 
the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic 
technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. 
The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request 
for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

[[Page 31811]]

National Environmental Policy Act

    Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for 
NEPA that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, three 
classes of actions: those that normally require preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement, those that normally require preparation 
of an Environmental Assessment, and those that are categorically 
excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This proposed 
action qualifies for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20) 
(promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives) and 771.117(c)(1) 
(activities that do not lead directly to construction) for FHWA, and 23 
CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities which do not 
involve or lead directly to construction) for FTA. The Agencies have 
evaluated whether the proposed action would involve unusual 
circumstances or extraordinary circumstances and have determined that 
this proposed action would not involve such circumstances.
    The proposed rule provides the policies and requirements for 
statewide and metropolitan transportation plans and transportation 
improvement programs. The proposed rule follows closely the 
requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304. In 
addition, sections 134(q), 135(k), and 168(f)(1) of title 23, U.S.C., 
and sections 5303(q) and 5304(j) of title 49, U.S.C., establish that 
NEPA does not apply to decisions by the Secretary concerning a 
metropolitan or statewide transportation plan or transportation 
improvement programs under those sections.

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)

    The FHWA and FTA have evaluated this action under Executive Order 
11988, Floodplain Management. The agencies have determined that this 
action does not have an adverse impact associated with the occupancy 
and modification of floodplains and does not provide direct or indirect 
support of floodplain development. These proposed regulations do 
provide the State DOTs and the MPOs with the option of developing a 
programmatic mitigation plan as part of the transportation planning 
process, and floodplains could be one of the resources evaluated as 
part of these programmatic mitigation plans to help the States and MPOs 
avoid or minimize impacts to flood plains by future projects. These 
proposed regulations also encourage early coordination by State DOTs 
and MPOs with Federal and State environmental resource agencies during 
the planning process to identify environmental resources in the 
interest of avoiding or minimizing impacts. When FHWA and FTA make a 
future funding or other approval decision on a project basis, they 
consider floodplain management at that point.

Executive Order 13653 (Climate Preparedness and Resilience)

    The FHWA and FTA have evaluated this action under Executive Order 
13653, Climate Preparedness and Resilience. The FHWA and FTA have 
determined that this proposed rule provides an optional means where 
State DOTs and MPOs could consider the effects of climate change and 
resilience in the context of the transportation planning process, such 
as during the development of statewide or metropolitan transportation 
plans. Scenario planning, which is discussed in these regulations as an 
optional tool for aiding MPOs in their development of the metropolitan 
transportation plan, is another option where MPOs could consider 
climate change and resilience as part of scenarios evaluated during the 
development of the metropolitan transportation plan. The FHWA and FTA 
have determined that these proposed regulations, if finalized as 
proposed, could provide an optional means for States and MPOs to assess 
climate change and resilience as part of the transportation planning 
process.

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 would 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.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this action under Executive Order 
13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believe that the proposed action 
would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, 
would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments, and would not preempt tribal laws. The planning 
regulations contain requirements for States to consult with Indian 
tribal governments in the planning process. Tribes are required under 
25 CFR part 170 to develop long-range plans and develop an Indian 
Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) for programming TTP projects. 
However, the requirements in 25 CFR part 170 would not be changed by 
this rulemaking. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not 
required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001. We have determined that it is 
not a significant energy action under that order because, although it 
is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy 
Effects is not required.

Executive Order 5610.2(a) (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT 
Order 5610.2(a), 91 FR 27534 (May 10, 2012) (available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/index.cfm) require DOT agencies to achieve environmental 
justice (EJ) as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic 
effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States. The DOT 
Order requires DOT agencies to address compliance with the Executive 
Order 12898 and the DOT Order in all rulemaking activities. In 
addition, FHWA and FTA have issued additional documents relating to 
administration of the Executive Order

[[Page 31812]]

12898 and the DOT Order. On June 14, 2012, FHWA issued an update to its 
EJ order, FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations (the FHWA 
Order) (available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/664023a.htm). On August 15, 2012, FTA's Circular 
4703.1 became effective, which contains guidance for States and MPOs to 
incorporate EJ into their planning processes (available online at 
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_EJ_Circular_7.14-12_FINAL.pdf).
    The FHWA and FTA have evaluated this proposed rule under the 
Executive Order, the DOT Order, the FHWA Order, and the FTA Circular. 
Environmental justice principles, in the context of planning, should be 
considered when the planning process is being implemented at the State 
and local level. As part of their stewardship and oversight of the 
federally aided transportation planning process of the States, transit 
agencies, and MPOs, FHWA and FTA encourage these entities to 
incorporate EJ principles into the statewide and metropolitan planning 
processes and documents as appropriate consistent with the applicable 
Orders and the FTA Circular. When FHWA and FTA make a future funding or 
other approval decision on a project basis, they consider EJ at that 
point.
    Nothing inherent in these proposed regulations would 
disproportionately impact minority or low income populations. The 
proposed regulations would establish procedures and other requirements 
to guide future State and local decisionmaking on programs and 
projects. Neither the regulations nor Sections 134 and 135 of title 23 
dictate the outcome of those decisions. The FHWA and FTA have 
determined that these proposed regulations, if finalized as proposed, 
would not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and 
environmental effects on minority or low income populations.

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

23 CFR Part 450

    Grant programs--transportation, Highway and roads, Mass 
transportation, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 613

    Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Mass 
transportation.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2014, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.85 and 1.91.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Therese W. McMillan,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA and FTA propose to 
amend title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 450, and title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 613, as set forth below:

TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS

0
1. Revise part 450 to read as follows:

PART 450--PLANNING ASSISTANCE AND STANDARDS

Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions
Sec.
450.100 Purpose.
450.102 Applicability.
450.104 Definitions.
Subpart B--Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning and 
Programming
450.200 Purpose.
450.202 Applicability.
450.204 Definitions.
450.206 Scope of the statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning process.
450.208 Coordination of planning process activities.
450.210 Interested parties, public involvement, and consultation.
450.212 Transportation planning studies and project development.
450.214 Development of programmatic mitigation plans.
450.216 Development and content of the long-range statewide 
transportation plan.
450.218 Development and content of the statewide transportation 
improvement program (STIP).
450.220 Self-certifications, Federal findings, and Federal 
approvals.
450.222 Project selection from the STIP.
450.224 Applicability of NEPA to statewide transportation plans and 
programs.
450.226 Phase-in of new requirements.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
450.300 Purpose.
450.302 Applicability.
450.304 Definitions.
450.306 Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process.
450.308 Funding for transportation planning and unified planning 
work programs.
450.310 Metropolitan planning organization designation and 
redesignation.
450.312 Metropolitan planning area boundaries.
450.314 Metropolitan planning agreements.
450.316 Interested parties, participation, and consultation.
450.318 Transportation planning studies and project development.
450.320 Development of programmatic mitigation plans.
450.322 Congestion management process in transportation management 
areas.
450.324 Development and content of the metropolitan transportation 
plan.
450.326 Development and content of the transportation improvement 
program (TIP).
450.328 TIP revisions and relationship to the STIP.
450.330 TIP action by the FHWA and the FTA.
450.332 Project selection from the TIP.
450.334 Annual listing of obligated projects.
450.336 Self-certifications and Federal certifications.
450.338 Applicability of NEPA to metropolitan transportation plans 
and programs.
450.340 Phase-in of new requirements.

Appendix A to Part 450--Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA 
Processes

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 
U.S.C. 5303 and 5304; 49 CFR 1.85 and 1.90.

Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions


Sec.  450.100  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to provide definitions for terms 
used in this part.


Sec.  450.102  Applicability.

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


Sec.  450.104  Definitions.

    Unless otherwise specified, the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and 
49 U.S.C. 5302 are applicable to this part.
    Administrative modification means a minor revision to a long-range 
statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, Transportation 
Improvement Program (TIP), or Statewide Transportation Improvement 
Program (STIP) that includes minor changes to project/project phase 
costs, minor changes to funding sources of previously included 
projects, and minor changes to project/project phase initiation dates. 
An administrative modification is a revision

[[Page 31813]]

that does not require public review and comment, a redemonstration of 
fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas).
    Amendment means a revision to a long-range statewide or 
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that involves a major 
change to a project included in a metropolitan transportation plan, 
TIP, or STIP, including the addition or deletion of a project or a 
major change in project cost, project/project phase initiation dates, 
or a major change in design concept or design scope (e.g., changing 
project termini or the number of through traffic lanes or changing the 
number of stations in the case of fixed guideway transit projects). 
Changes to projects that are included only for illustrative purposes do 
not require an amendment. An amendment is a revision that requires 
public review and comment and a redemonstration of fiscal constraint. 
If an amendment involves ``non-exempt'' projects in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas, a conformity determination is required.
    Asset management means a strategic and systematic process of 
operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on 
both engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information, 
to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair, 
rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a 
desired state of good repair over the lifecycle of the assets at 
minimum practicable cost.
    Attainment area means any geographic area in which levels of a 
given criteria air pollutant (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, 
PM10, PM2.5, and nitrogen dioxide) meet the 
health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for that 
pollutant. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a 
nonattainment area for others. A ``maintenance area'' (see definition 
below) is not considered an attainment area for transportation planning 
purposes.
    Available funds means funds derived from an existing source 
dedicated to or historically used for transportation purposes. For 
Federal funds, authorized and/or appropriated funds and the 
extrapolation of formula and discretionary funds at historic rates of 
increase are considered ``available.'' A similar approach may be used 
for State and local funds that are dedicated to or historically used 
for transportation purposes.
    Committed funds means funds that have been dedicated or obligated 
for transportation purposes. For State funds that are not dedicated to 
transportation purposes, only those funds over which the Governor has 
control may be considered ``committed.'' Approval of a TIP by the 
Governor is considered a commitment of those funds over which the 
Governor has control. For local or private sources of funds not 
dedicated to or historically used for transportation purposes 
(including donations of property), a commitment in writing (e.g., 
letter of intent) by the responsible official or body having control of 
the funds may be considered a commitment. For projects involving 49 
U.S.C. 5309 funding, execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement (or 
equivalent) or an Expedited Grant Agreement (or equivalent) with the 
DOT shall be considered a multiyear commitment of Federal funds.
    Conformity means a Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requirement 
that ensures that Federal funding and approval are given to 
transportation plans, programs and projects that are consistent with 
the air quality goals established by a State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation 
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing 
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required 
interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The 
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) sets 
forth policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring 
conformity of transportation activities.
    Conformity lapse means, pursuant to section 176(c) of the Clean Air 
Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), as amended, that the conformity determination 
for a metropolitan transportation plan or TIP has expired and thus 
there is no currently conforming metropolitan transportation plan or 
TIP.
    Congestion Management Process means a systematic approach required 
in transportation management areas (TMAs) that provides for effective 
management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed and 
implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing 
transportation facilities eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C., 
and title 49 U.S.C., through the use of travel demand reduction and 
operational management strategies.
    Consideration means that one or more parties takes into account the 
opinions, action, consequences, and relevant information from other 
parties in making a decision or determining a course of action.
    Consultation means that one or more parties confer with other 
identified parties in accordance with an established process and, prior 
to taking action(s), considers the views of the other parties and 
periodically informs them about action(s) taken. This definition does 
not apply to the ``consultation'' performed by the States and the 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in comparing the long-range 
statewide transportation plan and the metropolitan transportation plan, 
respectively, to State and tribal conservation plans or maps or 
inventories of natural or historic resources (see Sec.  450.216(j) and 
Sec.  450.324(g)(1) and (g)(2)).
    Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the 
transportation planning and programming processes work together to 
achieve a common goal or objective.
    Coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan means 
a locally developed, coordinated transportation plan that identifies 
the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older 
adults, and people with low incomes, provides strategies for meeting 
those local needs, and prioritizes transportation services for funding 
and implementation.
    Coordination means the cooperative development of plans, programs, 
and schedules among agencies and entities with legal standing and 
adjustment of such plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general 
consistency, as appropriate.
    Design concept means the type of facility identified for a 
transportation improvement project (e.g., freeway, expressway, arterial 
highway, grade-separated highway, toll road, reserved right-of-way rail 
transit, mixed-traffic rail transit, or busway).
    Design scope means the aspects that will affect the proposed 
facility's impact on the region, 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, safety 
features, access control including approximate number and location of 
interchanges, or preferential treatment for high-occupancy vehicles).
    Designated recipient means an entity designated, in accordance with 
the planning process under 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, by the Governor of 
a State, responsible local officials, and publicly owned operators of 
public transportation, to receive and apportion amounts under 49 U.S.C. 
5336 that are attributable to urbanized areas of 200,000 or more in 
population, or a State or regional authority if the authority is 
responsible under the laws of a State for a capital project and for

[[Page 31814]]

financing and directly providing public transportation.
    Environmental mitigation activities means strategies, policies, 
programs, and actions that, over time, will serve to avoid, minimize, 
rectify, reduce or eliminate impacts to environmental resources 
associated with the implementation of a long-range statewide 
transportation plan or metropolitan transportation plan.
    Expedited Grant Agreement (EGA) means a contract that defines the 
scope of a Small Starts project, the Federal financial contribution, 
and other terms and conditions, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 
5309(h)(7).
    Federal land management agency means units of the Federal 
Government currently responsible for the administration of public lands 
(e.g., U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 
Land Management, and the National Park Service).
    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 plan means documentation required to be included with a 
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP (and optional for the long-
range statewide transportation plan and STIP) that demonstrates the 
consistency between reasonably available and projected sources of 
Federal, State, local, and private revenues and the costs of 
implementing proposed transportation system improvements.
    Financially constrained or Fiscal constraint means that the 
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes sufficient 
financial information for demonstrating that projects in the 
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP can be implemented 
using committed, available, or reasonably available revenue sources, 
with reasonable assurance that the federally supported transportation 
system is being adequately operated and maintained. For the TIP and the 
STIP, financial constraint/fiscal constraint applies to each program 
year. Additionally, projects in air quality nonattainment and 
maintenance areas can be included in the first 2 years of the TIP and 
STIP only if funds are ``available'' or ``committed.''
    Freight shippers means any entity that routinely transport cargo 
from one location to another by providers of freight transportation 
services or by their own operations, involving one or more travel 
modes.
    Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) means an instrument that 
defines the scope of a project, the Federal financial contribution, and 
other terms and conditions for funding New Starts projects as required 
by 49 U.S.C. 5309(k)(2).
    Governor means the Governor of any of the 50 States or the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
    Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) means a State safety 
program to implement the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 130 and 148, including 
the development of a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-
Highway Crossings Program and program of highway safety improvement 
projects.
    Illustrative project means an additional transportation project 
that may be included in a financial plan for a metropolitan 
transportation plan, TIP, or STIP if reasonable additional resources 
were to become available.
    Indian Tribal government means a duly formed governing body for 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, Public Law 103-454.
    Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) means electronics, 
photonics, communications, or information processing used singly or in 
combination to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface 
transportation system.
    Interim metropolitan transportation plan means a transportation 
plan composed of projects eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse 
and otherwise meeting all other applicable provisions of this part, 
including approval by the MPO.
    Interim Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) means a TIP 
composed of projects eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse and 
otherwise meeting all other applicable provisions of this part, 
including approval by the MPO and the Governor.
    Local official means elected or appointed officials of general 
purpose local government with responsibility for transportation.
    Long-range statewide transportation plan means the official, 
statewide, multimodal, transportation plan covering a period of no less 
than 20 years developed through the statewide transportation planning 
process.
    Maintenance area means any geographic region of the United States 
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously designated as 
a nonattainment area for one or more pollutants pursuant to the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990, and subsequently redesignated as an 
attainment area subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance 
plan under section 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
7505a).
    Major modes of transportation means those forms of transportation 
administered, managed, owned, or operated by public agencies or 
authorities that provide transportation services open to the public for 
the movement of people and goods or as operated by the private sector 
on behalf of a public agency owned facility.
    Management system means a systematic process, designed to assist 
decision makers in selecting cost effective strategies/actions to 
improve the efficiency or safety of, and protect the investment in the 
nation's infrastructure. A management system can include: 
identification of performance measures; data collection and analysis; 
determination of needs; evaluation and selection of appropriate 
strategies/actions to address the needs; and evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the implemented strategies/actions.
    Metropolitan Planning Agreement means a written agreement between 
the MPO, the State(s), and the providers of public transportation 
serving the metropolitan planning area that describes how they will 
work cooperatively to meet their mutual responsibilities in carrying 
out the metropolitan transportation planning process.
    Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) means the geographic area 
determined by agreement between the MPO for the area and the Governor, 
in which the metropolitan transportation planning process is carried 
out.
    Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) means the policy board of 
an organization created and designated to carry out the metropolitan 
transportation planning process.
    Metropolitan Transportation Plan means the official multimodal 
transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon 
that the MPO develops, adopts, and updates through the metropolitan 
transportation planning process.
    National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) means those standards 
established pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7409).
    Nonattainment area means any geographic region of the United States 
that EPA designates as a nonattainment area under section 107 of the 
Clean Air

[[Page 31815]]

Act (42 U.S.C. 7407) for any pollutants for which an NAAQS exists.
    Nonmetropolitan area means a geographic area outside a designated 
metropolitan planning area.
    Nonmetropolitan local officials means elected and appointed 
officials of general purpose local government in a nonmetropolitan area 
with responsibility for transportation.
    Obligated projects means strategies and projects funded under title 
23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for which the State or 
designated recipient authorized and committed the supporting Federal 
funds in preceding or current program years, and authorized by the FHWA 
or awarded as a grant by the FTA.
    Operational and management strategies means actions and strategies 
aimed at improving the performance of existing and planned 
transportation facilities to relieve congestion and maximize the safety 
and mobility of people and goods.
    Performance measure is as defined in 23 CFR 490.XXX and 49 CFR 
XXX.XXX.
    Performance metric is as defined in 23 CFR 490.XXX and 49 CFR 
XXX.XXX.
    Performance target is as defined in 23 CFR 490.XXX and 49 CFR 
XXX.XXX.
    Project selection means the procedures followed by MPOs, States, 
and public transportation operators to advance projects from the first 
4 years of an approved TIP and/or STIP to implementation, in accordance 
with agreed upon procedures.
    Provider of freight transportation services means any entity that 
transports or otherwise facilitates the movement of cargo from one 
location to another for others or for itself.
    Public transportation agency safety plan means a comprehensive plan 
established by a State or recipient of funds under title 49, chapter 53 
and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
    Public transportation operator means the public entity or 
government-approved authority that participates in the continuing, 
cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process in 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and 
is a recipient of Federal funds under title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for 
transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing 
general or special transportation to the public, but does not include 
sightseeing, school bus, charter, certain types of shuttle service, 
intercity bus transportation, or intercity passenger rail 
transportation provided by Amtrak.
    Regional ITS architecture means a regional framework for ensuring 
institutional agreement and technical integration for the 
implementation of ITS projects or groups of projects.
    Regionally significant project means a transportation project 
(other than projects that may be grouped in the TIP and/or STIP or 
exempt projects as defined in EPA's transportation conformity 
regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) that is on a facility that 
serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the 
area outside the region; major activity centers in the region; major 
planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, or 
employment centers; or transportation terminals) and would normally be 
included in the modeling of the metropolitan area's transportation 
network. At a minimum, this includes all principal arterial highways 
and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to 
regional highway travel.
    Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) means a policy 
board of nonmetropolitan local officials or their designees created to 
carry out the regional transportation planning process.
    Revision means a change to a long-range statewide or metropolitan 
transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that occurs between scheduled 
periodic updates. A major revision is an ``amendment'' while a minor 
revision is an ``administrative modification.''
    Scenario planning means a planning process that evaluates the 
effects of alternative policies, plans and/or programs on the future of 
a community or region. This activity should provide information to 
decision makers as they develop the transportation plan.
    State means any one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or 
Puerto Rico.
    State Implementation Plan (SIP) means, as defined in section 302(q) 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7602(q)), the portion (or 
portions) of the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, 
which has been approved under section 110 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7410), 
or promulgated under section 110(c) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7410(c)), or 
promulgated or approved pursuant to regulations promulgated under 
section 301(d) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7601(d)) and which implements the 
relevant requirements of the CAA.
    Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) means a 
statewide prioritized listing/program of transportation projects 
covering a period of 4 years that is consistent with the long-range 
statewide transportation plan, metropolitan transportation plans, and 
TIPs, and required for projects to be eligible for funding under title 
23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
    Strategic Highway Safety Plan means a comprehensive 
multidisciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a State DOT 
in accordance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148.
    Transit Asset Management Plan is as defined in 49 CFR XXX.XXX.
    Transit Asset Management System is as defined in 49 CFR XXX.XXX.
    Transportation Control Measure (TCM) means any measure that is 
specifically identified and committed to in the applicable SIP, 
including a substitute or additional TCM that is incorporated into the 
applicable SIP through the process established in CAA section 
176(c)(8), that is either one of the types listed in section 108 of the 
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7408) 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 that control the emissions from 
vehicles under fixed traffic conditions are not TCMs.
    Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) means a prioritized 
listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of 4 years 
that is developed and formally adopted by an MPO as part of the 
metropolitan transportation planning process, consistent with the 
metropolitan transportation plan, and required for projects to be 
eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 
53.
    Transportation Management Area (TMA) means an urbanized area with a 
population over 200,000, as defined by the Bureau of the Census and 
designated by the Secretary of Transportation, or any additional area 
where TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the MPO and 
designated by the Secretary of Transportation.
    Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) means a statement of work 
identifying the planning priorities and activities to be carried out 
within a metropolitan planning area. At a minimum, a UPWP includes a 
description of the planning work and resulting products, who will 
perform the work, time frames for completing the work, the cost of the 
work, and the source(s) of funds.
    Update means making current a long-range statewide transportation 
plan, metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP through a 
comprehensive review. Updates require public review and comment, a 20-
year horizon for metropolitan transportation plans and

[[Page 31816]]

long-range statewide transportation plans, a 4-year program period for 
TIPs and STIPs, demonstration of fiscal constraint (except for long-
range statewide transportation plans), and a conformity determination 
(for metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas).
    Urbanized area (UZA) means a geographic area with a population of 
50,000 or more, as designated by the Bureau of the Census.
    Users of public transportation means any person, or groups 
representing such persons, who use transportation open to the general 
public, other than taxis and other privately funded and operated 
vehicles.
    Visualization techniques means methods used by States and MPOs in 
the development of transportation plans and programs with the public, 
elected and appointed officials, and other stakeholders in a clear and 
easily accessible format such as GIS- or web-based surveys, 
inventories, maps, pictures, and/or displays identifying features such 
as roadway rights of way, transit, intermodal, and non-motorized 
transportation facilities, historic and cultural resources, natural 
resources, and environmentally sensitive areas, to promote improved 
understanding of existing or proposed transportation plans and 
programs.

Subpart B--Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning 
and Programming


Sec.  450.200  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to implement the provisions of 23 
U.S.C. 135, 23 U.S.C. 150, and 49 U.S.C. 5304, as amended, which 
require each State to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and 
comprehensive performance-based statewide multimodal transportation 
planning process, including the development of a long-range statewide 
transportation plan and STIP, that facilitates the safe and efficient 
management, operation, and development of surface transportation 
systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight 
(including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation 
facilities) and that fosters economic growth and development within and 
between States and urbanized areas, while minimizing transportation-
related fuel consumption and air pollution in all areas of the State, 
including those areas subject to the metropolitan transportation 
planning requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.


Sec.  450.202  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to States and any 
other organizations or entities (e.g., MPOs, RTPOs and public 
transportation operators) that are responsible for satisfying the 
requirements for transportation plans and programs throughout the State 
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5304.


Sec.  450.204  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 subpart 
as so defined.


Sec.  450.206  Scope of the statewide and nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning process.

    (a) Each State shall carry out a continuing, cooperative, and 
comprehensive statewide transportation planning process that provides 
for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and 
services that will address the following factors:
    (1) Support the economic vitality of the United States, the States, 
metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan areas, especially by enabling 
global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
    (2) Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized 
and non-motorized users;
    (3) Increase the security of the transportation system for 
motorized and non-motorized users;
    (4) Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight;
    (5) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy 
conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency 
between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth 
and economic development patterns;
    (6) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation 
system, across and between modes throughout the State, for people and 
freight;
    (7) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
    (8) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation 
system.
    (b) Consideration of the planning factors in paragraph (a) of this 
section shall be reflected, as appropriate, in the statewide 
transportation planning process. The degree of consideration and 
analysis of the factors should be based on the scale and complexity of 
many issues, including transportation systems development, land use, 
employment, economic development, human and natural environment 
(including Section 4(f) properties as defined in 23 CFR 774.17), and 
housing and community development.
    (c) Performance-based approach. (1) The statewide transportation 
planning process shall provide for the establishment and use of a 
performance-based approach to transportation decisionmaking to support 
the national goals described in 23 U.S.C. 150(b) and the general 
purposes described in 49 U.S.C. 5301.
    (2) Each State shall select and establish performance targets in 
coordination with the relevant MPOs to ensure consistency to the 
maximum extent practicable. The targets shall address the performance 
areas described in 23 U.S.C. 150(c), and the measures established under 
23 CFR part 490, where applicable, to use in tracking progress toward 
attainment of critical outcomes for the State. States shall establish 
performance targets that reflect the measures identified in 23 U.S.C. 
150(c) not later than 1 year after the effective date of the DOT final 
rule on performance measures. Each State shall select and establish 
targets under this paragraph in accordance with the appropriate target 
setting framework established at 23 CFR part 490. Each State should 
select and establish performance targets in coordination with affected 
Federal Lands Management agencies, as appropriate.
    (3) In areas not represented by an MPO, the selection of public 
transportation performance targets by a State shall be coordinated, to 
the maximum extent practicable, with providers of public transportation 
to ensure consistency with the performance targets that public 
transportation providers establish under 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 
U.S.C. 5329(d).
    (4) A State shall integrate into the statewide transportation 
planning process, directly or by reference, the goals, objectives, 
performance measures, and targets described in this section, in other 
State transportation plans and transportation processes, as well as any 
plans developed pursuant to chapter 53 of title 49 by providers of 
public transportation in areas not represented by an MPO required as 
part of a performance-based program. Examples of such plans and 
processes include the HSIP, SHSP, the National Highway System (NHS) 
Asset Management Plan, the State Freight Plan (if the State has one), 
the Transit Asset Management Plan, and the Public Transportation Agency 
Safety Plan.
    (5) A State shall consider the performance measures and targets 
established under this paragraph when developing policies, programs, 
and investment priorities reflected in the

[[Page 31817]]

statewide transportation plan and statewide transportation improvement 
program.
    (d) The failure to consider any factor specified in paragraph (a) 
or (c) of this section shall not be subject to review by any court 
under title 23 U.S.C., 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, subchapter II of title 5 
U.S.C. Chapter 5, or title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 7 in any matter affecting a 
long-range statewide transportation plan, STIP, project or strategy, or 
the statewide transportation planning process findings.
    (e) Funds provided under 23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5305(e) are 
available to the State to accomplish activities described in this 
subpart. At the State's option, funds provided under 23 U.S.C. 
104(b)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310, and 5311 may also be used for 
statewide transportation planning. A State shall document statewide 
transportation planning activities performed with funds provided under 
title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 in a statewide planning 
work program in accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR part 420. The 
work program should include a discussion of the transportation planning 
priorities facing the State.


Sec.  450.208  Coordination of planning process activities.

    (a) In carrying out the statewide transportation planning process, 
each State shall, at a minimum:
    (1) Coordinate planning carried out under this subpart with the 
metropolitan transportation planning activities carried out under 
subpart C of this part for metropolitan areas of the State. The State 
is encouraged to rely on information, studies, or analyses provided by 
MPOs for portions of the transportation system located in metropolitan 
planning areas;
    (2) Coordinate planning carried out under this subpart with 
statewide trade and economic development planning activities and 
related multistate planning efforts;
    (3) Consider the concerns of Federal land management agencies that 
have jurisdiction over land within the boundaries of the State;
    (4) Cooperate with affected local elected and appointed officials 
with responsibilities for transportation, or, if applicable, through 
RTPOs described in Sec.  450.210(d) in nonmetropolitan areas;
    (5) Consider the concerns of Indian Tribal governments that have 
jurisdiction over land within the boundaries of the State;
    (6) Consider related planning activities being conducted outside of 
metropolitan planning areas and between States; and
    (7) Coordinate data collection and analyses with MPOs and public 
transportation operators to support statewide transportation planning 
and programming priorities and decisions.
    (b) The State air quality agency shall coordinate with the State 
department of transportation (State DOT) to develop the transportation 
portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) consistent with the 
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
    (c) Two or more States may enter into agreements or compacts, not 
in conflict with any law of the United States, for cooperative efforts 
and mutual assistance in support of activities under this subpart 
related to interstate areas and localities in the States and 
establishing authorities the States consider desirable for making the 
agreements and compacts effective. The right to alter, amend, or repeal 
interstate compacts entered into under this part is expressly reserved.
    (d) States may use any one or more of the management systems (in 
whole or in part) described in 23 CFR part 500.
    (e) In carrying out the statewide transportation planning process, 
States shall apply asset management principles and techniques 
consistent with the NHS Asset Management Plan and the Transit Asset 
Management Plan, and Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan in 
establishing planning goals, defining STIP priorities, and assessing 
transportation investment decisions, including transportation system 
safety, operations, preservation, and maintenance.
    (f) For non-NHS highways, States may apply principles and 
techniques consistent with other asset management plans to the 
transportation planning and programming processes, as appropriate.
    (g) A State shall integrate the goals, objectives, performance 
measures, and targets from the following into the statewide 
transportation planning process:
    (1) NHS Asset Management Plan, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 119(e), and 
Transit Asset Management Plan, as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326;
    (2) Applicable portions of the HSIP, including the SHSP, as 
specified in 23 U.S.C. 148;
    (3) Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan in 49 U.S.C. 5329(b);
    (4) Other safety and security planning and review processes, plans, 
and programs, as appropriate;
    (5) The State Freight Plan, if the State chooses to develop one; 
and
    (6) Other State transportation plans and transportation processes 
required as part of a performance-based program.
    (h) The statewide transportation planning process shall (to the 
maximum extent practicable) be consistent with the development of 
applicable regional intelligent transportation systems (ITS) 
architectures, as defined in 23 CFR part 940.
    (i) Preparation of the coordinated public transit-human services 
transportation plan, as required by 49 U.S.C. 5310, should be 
coordinated and consistent with the statewide transportation planning 
process.


Sec.  450.210  Interested parties, public involvement, and 
consultation.

    (a) In carrying out the statewide transportation planning process, 
including development of the long-range statewide transportation plan 
and the STIP, the State shall develop and use a documented public 
involvement process that provides opportunities for public review and 
comment at key decision points.
    (1) The State's public involvement process at a minimum shall:
    (i) Establish early and continuous public involvement opportunities 
that provide timely information about transportation issues and 
decisionmaking processes to individuals, affected public agencies, 
representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, 
private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public 
transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and 
bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, 
providers of freight transportation services, and other interested 
parties;
    (ii) Provide reasonable public access to technical and policy 
information used in the development of the long-range statewide 
transportation plan and the STIP;
    (iii) Provide adequate public notice of public involvement 
activities and time for public review and comment at key decision 
points, including a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed 
long-range statewide transportation plan and STIP;
    (iv) To the maximum extent practicable, ensure that public meetings 
are held at convenient and accessible locations and times;
    (v) To the maximum extent practicable, use visualization techniques 
to describe the proposed long-range statewide transportation plan and 
supporting studies;
    (vi) To the maximum extent practicable, make public information

[[Page 31818]]

available in electronically accessible format and means, such as the 
World Wide Web, as appropriate to afford reasonable opportunity for 
consideration of public information;
    (vii) Demonstrate explicit consideration and response to public 
input during the development of the long-range statewide transportation 
plan and STIP;
    (viii) Include a process for seeking out and considering the needs 
of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, 
such as low-income and minority households, who may face challenges 
accessing employment and other services; and
    (ix) Provide for the periodic review of the effectiveness of the 
public involvement process to ensure that the process provides full and 
open access to all interested parties and revise the process, as 
appropriate.
    (2) The State shall provide for public comment on existing and 
proposed processes for public involvement in the development of the 
long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP. At a minimum, 
the State shall allow 45 calendar days for public review and written 
comment before the procedures and any major revisions to existing 
procedures are adopted. The State shall provide copies of the approved 
public involvement process document(s) to the FHWA and the FTA for 
informational purposes.
    (b) The State shall provide for nonmetropolitan local official 
participation in the development of the long-range statewide 
transportation plan and the STIP. The State shall have a documented 
process(es) for cooperating with nonmetropolitan local officials 
representing units of general purpose local government and/or local 
officials with responsibility for transportation that is separate and 
discrete from the public involvement process and provides an 
opportunity for their participation in the development of the long-
range statewide transportation plan and the STIP. Although the FHWA and 
the FTA shall not review or approve this cooperative process(es), the 
State shall provide copies of the process document(s) to the FHWA and 
the FTA for informational purposes.
    (1) At least once every 5 years, the State shall review and solicit 
comments from nonmetropolitan local officials and other interested 
parties for a period of not less than 60 calendar days regarding the 
effectiveness of the cooperative process and any proposed changes. The 
State shall direct a specific request for comments to the State 
association of counties, State municipal league, regional planning 
agencies, or directly to nonmetropolitan local officials.
    (2) The State, at its discretion, is responsible for determining 
whether to adopt any proposed changes. If a proposed change is not 
adopted, the State shall make publicly available its reasons for not 
accepting the proposed change, including notification to 
nonmetropolitan local officials or their associations.
    (c) For each area of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian 
Tribal government, the State shall develop the long-range statewide 
transportation plan and STIP in consultation with the Tribal government 
and the Secretary of the Interior. States shall, to the extent 
practicable, develop a documented process(es) that outlines roles, 
responsibilities, and key decision points for consulting with Indian 
Tribal governments and Department of the Interior in the development of 
the long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP.
    (d) To carry out the transportation planning process required by 
this section, a Governor may establish and designate RTPOs to enhance 
the planning, coordination, and implementation of the long-range 
statewide transportation plan and STIP, with an emphasis on addressing 
the needs of nonmetropolitan areas of the State. In order to be treated 
as an RTPO for purposes of this Part, any existing regional planning 
organization must be established and designated as an RTPO under this 
section.
    (1) Where established, an RTPO shall be a multijurisdictional 
organization of nonmetropolitan local officials or their designees who 
volunteer for such organization and representatives of local 
transportation systems who volunteer for such organization.
    (2) An RTPO shall establish, at a minimum:
    (i) A policy committee, the majority of which shall consist of 
nonmetropolitan local officials, or their designees, and, as 
appropriate, additional representatives from the State, private 
business, transportation service providers, economic development 
practitioners, and the public in the region; and
    (ii) A fiscal and administrative agent, such as an existing 
regional planning and development organization, to provide professional 
planning, management, and administrative support.
    (3) The duties of an RTPO shall include:
    (i) Developing and maintaining, in cooperation with the State, 
regional long-range multimodal transportation plans;
    (ii) Developing a regional TIP for consideration by the State;
    (iii) Fostering the coordination of local planning, land use, and 
economic development plans with State, regional, and local 
transportation plans and programs;
    (iv) Providing technical assistance to local officials;
    (v) Participating in national, multistate, and State policy and 
planning development processes to ensure the regional and local input 
of nonmetropolitan areas;
    (vi) Providing a forum for public participation in the statewide 
and regional transportation planning processes;
    (vii) Considering and sharing plans and programs with neighboring 
RTPOs, MPOs, and, where appropriate, Indian Tribal Governments; and
    (viii) Conducting other duties, as necessary, to support and 
enhance the statewide planning process under Sec.  450.206.
    (4) If a State chooses not to establish or designate an RTPO, the 
State shall consult with affected nonmetropolitan local officials to 
determine projects that may be of regional significance.


Sec.  450.212  Transportation planning studies and project development.

    (a) Pursuant to section 1308 of the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century, TEA-21 (Pub. L. 105-178), a State(s), MPO(s), or 
public transportation operator(s) may undertake a multimodal, systems-
level corridor or subarea planning study as part of the statewide 
transportation planning process. To the extent practicable, development 
of these transportation planning studies shall involve consultation 
with, or joint efforts among, the State(s), MPO(s), and/or public 
transportation operator(s). The results or decisions of these 
transportation planning studies may be used as part of the overall 
project development process consistent with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and associated 
implementing regulations (23 CFR part 771 and 40 CFR parts 1500-1508). 
Specifically, these corridor or subarea studies may result in producing 
any of the following for a proposed transportation project:
    (1) Purpose and need or goals and objective statement(s);
    (2) General travel corridor and/or general mode(s) definition 
(e.g., highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination);
    (3) Preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of 
unreasonable alternatives;

[[Page 31819]]

    (4) Basic description of the environmental setting; and/or
    (5) Preliminary identification of environmental impacts and 
environmental mitigation.
    (b) Publicly available documents or other source material produced 
by, or in support of, the transportation planning process described in 
this subpart may be incorporated directly or by reference into 
subsequent NEPA documents, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21, if:
    (1) The NEPA lead agencies agree that such incorporation will aid 
in establishing or evaluating the purpose and need for the Federal 
action, reasonable alternatives, cumulative or other impacts on the 
human and natural environment, or mitigation of these impacts; and
    (2) The systems-level, corridor, or subarea planning study is 
conducted with:
    (i) Involvement of interested State, local, Tribal, and Federal 
agencies;
    (ii) Public review;
    (iii) Reasonable opportunity to comment during the statewide 
transportation planning process and development of the corridor or 
subarea planning study;
    (iv) Documentation of relevant decisions in a form that is 
identifiable and available for review during the NEPA scoping process 
and can be appended to or referenced in the NEPA document; and
    (v) The review of the FHWA and the FTA, as appropriate.
    (c) By agreement of the NEPA lead agencies, the above integration 
may be accomplished through tiering (as described in 40 CFR 1502.20), 
incorporating the subarea or corridor planning study into the draft 
Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment, or other 
means that the NEPA lead agencies deem appropriate. Additional 
information to further explain the linkages between the transportation 
planning and project development/NEPA processes is contained in 
Appendix A to this part, including an explanation that is non-binding 
guidance material.


Sec.  450.214  Development of Programmatic Mitigation Plans.

    (a) A State may develop programmatic mitigation plans to address 
the potential environmental impacts of future transportation projects. 
The State will determine the scope of the programmatic mitigation plan 
in consultation with the FHWA and/or the FTA and with the agency or 
agencies with jurisdiction and special expertise over the resources 
being addressed in the plan.
    (1) Scope. (i) A State may develop a programmatic mitigation plan 
on a local, regional, ecosystem, watershed, statewide or similar scale.
    (ii) The plan may encompass multiple environmental resources within 
a defined geographic area(s) or may focus on a specific type(s) of 
resource(s) such as aquatic resources, parkland, or wildlife habitat.
    (iii) The plan may address or consider impacts from all projects in 
a defined geographic area(s) or may focus on a specific type(s) of 
project(s).
    (2) Contents. The programmatic mitigation plan may include:
    (i) An assessment of the existing condition of natural and human 
environmental resources within the area covered by the plan, including 
an assessment of historic and recent trends and/or any potential 
threats to those resources;
    (ii) An identification of economic, social, and natural and human 
environmental resources within the geographic area that may be impacted 
and considered for mitigation. Examples of these resources include 
wetlands, streams, rivers, stormwater, parklands, cultural resources, 
historic resources, farmlands, and threatened or endangered species 
critical habitat. This may include the identification of areas of high 
conservation concern or value, and thus worthy of avoidance;
    (iii) An inventory of existing or planned environmental resource 
banks for the impacted resource categories such as wetland, stream, 
habitat, species, and an inventory of federally, State, or locally 
approved in-lieu-of-fee programs;
    (iv) An assessment of potential opportunities to improve the 
overall quality of the identified environmental resources through 
strategic mitigation for impacts of transportation projects, which may 
include the prioritization of parcels or areas for acquisition and/or 
potential resource banking sites;
    (v) An adoption or development of standard measures or operating 
procedures for mitigating certain types of impacts; establishment of 
parameters for determining or calculating appropriate mitigation for 
certain types of impacts, such as mitigation ratios, or criteria for 
determining appropriate mitigation sites;
    (vi) Adaptive management procedures, such as protocols or 
procedures that involve monitoring actual impacts against predicted 
impacts over time and adjusting mitigation measures in response to 
information gathered through the monitoring;
    (vii) Acknowledgment of specific statutory or regulatory 
requirements that must be satisfied when determining appropriate 
mitigation for certain types of resources.
    (b) If a State chooses to develop a programmatic mitigation plan 
then it shall be developed as part of the statewide transportation 
planning process, requiring the State to consider the following process 
prior to adopting a programmatic mitigation plan:
    (1) Consult with each agency with jurisdiction over the 
environmental resources considered in the programmatic mitigation plan;
    (2) Make available a draft of the programmatic mitigation plan for 
review and comment by appropriate environmental resource agencies and 
the public;
    (3) Consider comments received from such agencies and the public on 
the draft plan; and
    (4) Address such comments in the final programmatic mitigation 
plan.
    (c) A State may integrate a programmatic mitigation plan with other 
plans, including, watershed plans, ecosystem plans, species recovery 
plans, growth management plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, and land 
use plans.
    (d) If a programmatic mitigation plan has been developed pursuant 
to this section, any Federal agency responsible for environmental 
reviews, permits, or approvals for a transportation project may use the 
recommendations in the programmatic mitigation plan when carrying out 
its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) and any other environmental laws 
and regulations.
    (e) Nothing in this section limits the use of programmatic 
approaches for reviews under NEPA.


Sec.  450.216  Development and content of the long-range statewide 
transportation plan.

    (a) The State shall develop a long-range statewide transportation 
plan, with a minimum 20-year forecast period at the time of adoption, 
that provides for the development and implementation of the multimodal 
transportation system for the State. The long-range statewide 
transportation plan shall consider and include, as applicable, elements 
and connections between public transportation, non-motorized modes, 
rail, commercial motor vehicle, waterway, and aviation facilities, 
particularly with respect to intercity travel.

[[Page 31820]]

    (b) The long-range statewide transportation plan should include 
capital, operations and management strategies, investments, procedures, 
and other measures to ensure the preservation and most efficient use of 
the existing transportation system. The long-range statewide 
transportation plan may consider projects and strategies that address 
areas or corridors where current or projected congestion threatens the 
efficient functioning of key elements of the State's transportation 
system.
    (c) The long-range statewide transportation plan shall reference, 
summarize, or contain any applicable short-range planning studies; 
strategic planning and/or policy studies; transportation needs studies; 
management systems reports; emergency relief and disaster preparedness 
plans; and any statements of policies, goals, and objectives on issues 
(e.g., transportation, safety, economic development, social and 
environmental effects, or energy), as appropriate, that were relevant 
to the development of the long-range statewide transportation plan.
    (d) The long-range statewide transportation plan should integrate 
the priorities, goals, countermeasures, strategies, or projects 
contained in the HSIP, including the SHSP, required under 23 U.S.C. 
148, the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan required under 49 
U.S.C. 5329(d), or an Interim Agency Safety Plan in accordance with 49 
CFR part 659, as in effect until completion of the Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
    (e) The long-range statewide transportation plan should include a 
security element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, 
or projects set forth in other transit safety and security planning and 
review processes, plans, and programs, as appropriate.
    (f) The statewide transportation plan should include:
    (1) A description of the performance measures and performance 
targets used in assessing the performance of the transportation system 
in accordance with Sec.  450.206(c); and
    (2) A system performance report and subsequent updates evaluating 
the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect 
to the performance targets described in Sec.  450.206(c), including 
progress achieved by the MPO(s) in meeting the performance targets in 
comparison with system performance recorded in previous reports.
    (g) Within each metropolitan area of the State, the State shall 
develop the long-range statewide transportation plan in cooperation 
with the affected MPOs.
    (h) For nonmetropolitan areas, the State shall develop the long-
range statewide transportation plan in cooperation with affected 
nonmetropolitan local officials with responsibility for transportation 
or, if applicable, through RTPOs described in Sec.  450.210(d) using 
the State's consultation process(es) established under Sec.  
450.210(b).
    (i) For each area of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian 
Tribal government, the State shall develop the long-range statewide 
transportation plan in consultation with the Tribal government and the 
Secretary of the Interior consistent with Sec.  450.210(c).
    (j) The State shall develop the long-range statewide transportation 
plan, as appropriate, in consultation with State, Tribal, and local 
agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, 
environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation. This 
consultation shall involve comparison of transportation plans to State 
and Tribal conservation plans or maps, if available, and comparison of 
transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources, 
if available.
    (k) A long-range statewide transportation plan shall include a 
discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities and 
potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities 
that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the 
environmental functions affected by the long-range statewide 
transportation plan. The discussion may focus on policies, programs, or 
strategies, rather than at the project level. The State shall develop 
the discussion in consultation with Federal, State, regional, local and 
Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies. The State 
may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this consultation.
    (l) In developing and updating the long-range statewide 
transportation plan, the State shall provide:
    (1) To nonmetropolitan local elected officials, or, if applicable, 
through RTPOs described in Sec.  450.210(d), an opportunity to 
participate in accordance with Sec.  450.216(h); and
    (2) To individuals, affected public agencies, representatives of 
public transportation employees, freight shippers, private providers of 
transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, 
representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle 
transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, providers 
of freight transportation services, and other interested parties with a 
reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed long-range statewide 
transportation plan. In carrying out these requirements, the State 
shall use the public involvement process described under Sec.  
450.210(a).
    (m) The long-range statewide transportation plan may include a 
financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted long-range statewide 
transportation plan can be implemented, indicates resources from public 
and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available 
to carry out the plan, and recommends any additional financing 
strategies for needed projects and programs. In addition, for 
illustrative purposes, the financial plan may include additional 
projects that the State would include in the adopted long-range 
statewide transportation plan if additional resources beyond those 
identified in the financial plan were to become available. The 
financial plan may include an assessment of the appropriateness of 
innovative finance techniques (for example, tolling, pricing, bonding, 
public-private partnerships, or other strategies) as revenue sources.
    (n) The long-range statewide transportation plan should be informed 
by the financial plan and investment strategies from the State asset 
management plan for the NHS (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)) and 
investment priorities of the public transit asset management plan(s) 
(as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326).
    (o) The State is not required to select any project from the 
illustrative list of additional projects included in the financial plan 
described in paragraph (m) of this section.
    (p) The State shall publish or otherwise make available the long-
range statewide transportation plan for public review, including (to 
the maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible formats 
and means, such as the World Wide Web, as described in Sec.  
450.210(a).
    (q) The State shall continually evaluate, revise, and periodically 
update the long-range statewide transportation plan, as appropriate, 
using the procedures in this section for development and establishment 
of the long-range statewide transportation plan.
    (r) The State shall provide copies of any new or amended long-range 
statewide transportation plan documents to the FHWA and the FTA for 
informational purposes.

[[Page 31821]]

Sec.  450.218  Development and content of the statewide transportation 
improvement program (STIP).

    (a) The State shall develop a statewide transportation improvement 
program (STIP) for all areas of the State. The STIP shall cover a 
period of no less than 4 years and shall be updated at least every 4 
years, or more frequently if the Governor of the State elects a more 
frequent update cycle. However, if the STIP covers more than 4 years, 
the FHWA and the FTA will consider the projects in the additional years 
as informational. In case of difficulties developing a portion of the 
STIP for a particular area (e.g., metropolitan planning area, 
nonattainment or maintenance area, or Indian Tribal lands), the State 
may develop a partial STIP covering the rest of the State.
    (b) For each metropolitan area in the State, the State shall 
develop the STIP in cooperation with the MPO designated for the 
metropolitan area. The State shall include each metropolitan TIP 
without change in the STIP, directly or by reference, after approval of 
the TIP by the MPO and the Governor. A metropolitan TIP in a 
nonattainment or maintenance area is subject to a FHWA/FTA conformity 
finding before inclusion in the STIP. In areas outside a metropolitan 
planning area but within an air quality nonattainment or maintenance 
area containing any part of a metropolitan area, projects must be 
included in the regional emissions analysis that supported the 
conformity determination of the associated metropolitan TIP before they 
are added to the STIP.
    (c) For each nonmetropolitan area in the State, the State shall 
develop the STIP in cooperation with affected nonmetropolitan local 
officials with responsibility for transportation or, if applicable, 
through RTPOs described in Sec.  450.210(d) using the State's 
consultation process(es) established under Sec.  450.210(b).
    (d) For each area of the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian 
Tribal government, the STIP shall be developed in consultation with the 
Tribal government and the Secretary of the Interior.
    (e) Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands Transportation 
Program, and Federal Lands Access Program TIPs shall be included 
without change in the STIP, directly or by reference, once approved by 
the FHWA pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 201(c)(4).
    (f) The Governor shall provide all interested parties with a 
reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed STIP as required by 
Sec.  450.210(a).
    (g) The STIP shall include capital and non-capital surface 
transportation projects (or phases of projects) within the boundaries 
of the State proposed for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 53 (including transportation alternatives and associated 
transit improvements; Tribal Transportation Program projects, Federal 
Lands Transportation Program projects, and Federal Lands Access Program 
projects; HSIP projects; trails projects; and accessible pedestrian 
walkways and bicycle facilities), except the following that may be 
included:
    (1) Safety projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 49 U.S.C. 31102;
    (2) Metropolitan planning projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(d) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5305(d);
    (3) State planning and research projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 505 
and 49 U.S.C. 5305(e);
    (4) State planning and research projects funded with Surface 
Transportation Program funds;
    (5) Emergency relief projects (except those involving substantial 
functional, locational, or capacity changes);
    (6) Research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects 
funded under 49 U.S.C. 5312, and technical assistance and standards 
development projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 5314;
    (7) Project management oversight projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 
5327; and
    (8) State safety oversight programs funded under 49 U.S.C. 5329.
    (h) The STIP shall contain all regionally significant projects 
requiring an action by the FHWA or the FTA whether or not the projects 
are to be funded with 23 U.S.C. Chapters 1 and 2 or title 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53 funds (e.g., addition of an interchange to the Interstate 
System with State, local, and/or private funds, and congressionally 
designated projects not funded under title 23 U.S.C. or title 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53). For informational and conformity purposes, the STIP shall 
include (if appropriate and included in any TIPs) all regionally 
significant projects proposed to be funded with Federal funds other 
than those administered by the FHWA or the FTA, as well as all 
regionally significant projects to be funded with non-Federal funds.
    (i) The STIP shall include for each project or phase (e.g., 
preliminary engineering, environment/NEPA, right-of-way, design, or 
construction) the following:
    (1) Sufficient descriptive material (i.e., type of work, termini, 
and length) to identify the project or phase;
    (2) Estimated total project cost or a project cost range, which may 
extend beyond the 4 years of the STIP;
    (3) The amount of Federal funds proposed to be obligated during 
each program year. For the first year, this includes the proposed 
category of Federal funds and source(s) of non-Federal funds. For the 
second, third, and fourth years, this includes the likely category or 
possible categories of Federal funds and sources of non-Federal funds; 
and
    (4) Identification of the agencies responsible for carrying out the 
project or phase.
    (j) 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 771.117(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part 93. 
In nonattainment and maintenance areas, project classifications must be 
consistent with the ``exempt project'' classifications contained in the 
EPA's transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart 
A). In addition, projects proposed for funding under title 23 U.S.C. 
Chapter 2 that are not regionally significant may be grouped in one 
line item or identified individually in the STIP.
    (k) Each project or project phase included in the STIP shall be 
consistent with the long-range statewide transportation plan developed 
under Sec.  450.216 and, in metropolitan planning areas, consistent 
with an approved metropolitan transportation plan developed under Sec.  
450.324.
    (l) The STIP may include a financial plan that demonstrates how the 
approved STIP can be implemented, indicates resources from public and 
private sources that are reasonably expected to be available to carry 
out the STIP, and recommends any additional financing strategies for 
needed projects and programs. In addition, for illustrative purposes, 
the financial plan may include additional projects that would be 
included in the adopted STIP if reasonable additional resources beyond 
those identified in the financial plan were to become 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 FHWA and the FTA on 
the STIP. Revenue and cost estimates for the STIP must use an inflation 
rate to reflect ``year of expenditure dollars,'' based on reasonable 
financial principles and information, developed cooperatively by

[[Page 31822]]

the State, MPOs, and public transportation operators.
    (m) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included in 
the first 2 years of the STIP shall be limited to those for which funds 
are available or committed. Financial constraint of the STIP shall be 
demonstrated and maintained by year and shall include sufficient 
financial information to demonstrate which projects are to be 
implemented using current and/or reasonably available revenues, while 
federally supported facilities are being adequately operated and 
maintained. In the case of proposed funding sources, strategies for 
ensuring their availability shall be identified in the financial plan 
consistent with paragraph (l) of this section. For purposes of 
transportation operations and maintenance, the STIP shall include 
financial information containing system-level estimates of costs and 
revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to 
adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 
U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 
U.S.C. 5302).
    (n) Projects in any of the first 4 years of the STIP may be 
advanced in place of another project in the first 4 years of the STIP, 
subject to the project selection requirements of Sec.  450.222. In 
addition, subject to FHWA/FTA approval (see Sec.  450.220), the State 
may revise the STIP at any time under procedures agreed to by the 
State, MPO(s), and public transportation operators consistent with the 
STIP development procedures established in this section, as well as the 
procedures for participation by interested parties (see Sec.  
450.210(a)). Changes that affect fiscal constraint must take place by 
amendment of the STIP.
    (o) The STIP should be informed by the financial plan and the 
investment strategies from the State asset management plan for the NHS 
(as defined in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)) and by the public transit asset 
management plan(s) (as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326).
    (p) The STIP shall include 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.
    (q) In cases where the FHWA and the FTA find a STIP to be fiscally 
constrained, and a revenue source is subsequently removed or 
substantially reduced (i.e., by legislative or administrative actions), 
the FHWA and the FTA will not withdraw the original determination of 
fiscal constraint. However, in such cases, the FHWA and the FTA will 
not act on an updated or amended STIP that does not reflect the changed 
revenue situation.
    (r) A STIP shall include, to the maximum extent practicable, a 
discussion of the anticipated effect of the STIP toward achieving the 
performance targets identified by the State in the statewide 
transportation plan or other state performance-based plan(s), linking 
investment priorities to those performance targets. This discussion 
should be consistent with the strategies to achieve targets presented 
in the statewide transportation plan and other performance management 
plans such as the highway and transit asset management plans, the SHSP, 
the public transportation agency safety plan, the Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) performance plan, and if one 
exists, the State freight plan.


Sec.  450.220  Self-certifications, Federal findings, and Federal 
approvals.

    (a) At least every 4 years, the State shall submit an updated STIP 
concurrently to the FHWA and the FTA for joint approval. The State must 
also submit STIP amendments to the FHWA and the FTA for joint approval. 
At the time the entire proposed STIP or STIP amendments are submitted 
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 and 5304, and this part;
    (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
2000d-1) and 49 CFR part 21;
    (3) 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age in employment or 
business opportunity;
    (4) Section 1101(b) of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) and 49 CFR part 26 
regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in DOT 
funded projects;
    (5) 23 CFR part 230, regarding implementation of an equal 
employment opportunity program on Federal and Federal-aid highway 
construction contracts;
    (6) The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
(42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38;
    (7) 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 40 CFR part 93;
    (8) The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), 
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance;
    (9) 23 U.S.C. 324, regarding the prohibition of discrimination 
based on gender; and
    (10) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) 
and 49 CFR part 27 regarding discrimination against individuals with 
disabilities.
    (b) The FHWA and the FTA shall review the STIP or the amended STIP, 
and make a joint finding on the extent to which the STIP is based on a 
statewide transportation planning process that meets or substantially 
meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 
5304, and subparts A, B, and C of this part. Approval of the STIP by 
the FHWA and the FTA, in its entirety or in part, will be based upon 
the results of this joint finding.
    (1) If the FHWA and the FTA determine that the STIP or amended STIP 
is based on a statewide transportation planning process that meets or 
substantially meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135, 49 U.S.C. 5304, 
and this part, the FHWA and the FTA may jointly:
    (i) Approve the entire STIP;
    (ii) Approve the STIP subject to certain corrective actions by the 
State; or
    (iii) Under special circumstances, approve a partial STIP covering 
only a portion of the State.
    (2) If the FHWA and the FTA jointly determine and document in the 
planning finding that a submitted STIP or amended STIP does not 
substantially meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135, 49 U.S.C. 5304, 
and this part for any identified categories of projects, the FHWA and 
the FTA will not approve the STIP.
    (c) The approval period for a new or amended STIP shall not exceed 
4 years. If a State demonstrates, in writing, that extenuating 
circumstances will delay the submittal of a new or amended STIP past 
its update deadline, the FHWA and the FTA will consider and take 
appropriate action on a request to extend the approval beyond 4 years 
for all or part of the STIP for a period not to exceed 180 calendar 
days. In these cases, priority consideration will be given to projects 
and strategies involving the operation and management of the multimodal 
transportation system. Where the request involves projects in a 
metropolitan planning area(s), the affected MPO(s) must concur in the 
request. If the delay was due to the

[[Page 31823]]

development and approval of a metropolitan TIP(s), the affected MPO(s) 
must provide supporting information, in writing, for the request.
    (d) Where necessary in order to maintain or establish highway and 
transit operations, the FHWA and the FTA may approve operating 
assistance for specific projects or programs, even though the projects 
or programs may not be included in an approved STIP.


Sec.  450.222  Project selection from the STIP.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  450.218(g) and Sec.  450.220(d), 
only projects in a FHWA/FTA approved STIP are eligible for funds 
administered by the FHWA or the FTA.
    (b) In metropolitan planning areas, transportation projects 
proposed for funds administered by the FHWA or the FTA shall be 
selected from the approved STIP in accordance with project selection 
procedures provided in Sec.  450.332.
    (c) In nonmetropolitan areas, with the exclusion of specific 
projects as described in this section, the State shall select projects 
from the approved STIP in cooperation with the affected nonmetropolitan 
local officials, or if applicable, through RTPOs described in Sec.  
450.210(e). The State shall select transportation projects undertaken 
on the NHS, under the Bridge and Interstate Maintenance programs in 
title 23 U.S.C. and under sections 5310 and 5311 of title 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53 from the approved STIP in consultation with the affected 
nonmetropolitan local officials with responsibility for transportation.
    (d) Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands Transportation 
Program, and Federal Lands Access Program projects shall be selected 
from the approved STIP in accordance with the procedures developed 
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, and 204.
    (e) 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) through (d) 
of this section is required for the implementing agency to proceed with 
these projects. If Federal funds available are significantly less than 
the authorized amounts, or where there is significant shifting of 
projects among years, Sec.  450.332(a) provides for a revised list of 
``agreed to'' projects to be developed upon the request of the State, 
MPO, or public transportation operator(s). If an implementing agency 
wishes to proceed with a project in the second, third, or fourth year 
of the STIP, the procedures in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section or expedited procedures that provide for the advancement of 
projects from the second, third, or fourth years of the STIP may be 
used, if agreed to by all parties involved in the selection process.


Sec.  450.224  Applicability of NEPA to statewide transportation plans 
and programs.

    Any decision by the Secretary concerning a long-range statewide 
transportation plan or STIP developed through the processes provided 
for in 23 U.S.C. 135, 49 U.S.C. 5304, and this subpart shall not be 
considered to be a Federal action subject to review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).


Sec.  450.226  Phase-in of new requirements.

    (a) Prior to [2 years after the publication date of the final 
rule], a State may adopt a long-range statewide transportation plan 
that has been developed using the SAFETEA-LU requirements or the 
provisions and requirements of this part. On or [2 years after the 
publication date of the final rule], a State may only adopt a long-
range statewide transportation plan that it has developed according to 
the provisions and requirements of this part.
    (b) Prior to [2 years after the publication date of the final 
rule], FHWA/FTA may approve a STIP update or amendment that has been 
developed using the SAFETEA-LU requirements or the provisions and 
requirements of this part. On or after [2 years after the publication 
date of the final rule], FHWA/FTA may only approve a STIP update or 
amendment that a State has developed according to the provisions and 
requirements of this part, regardless of when the State developed the 
STIP.
    (c) On and after [2 years after the publication date of the final 
rule], the FHWA and the FTA will take action on an updated or amended 
STIP developed under the provisions of this part, even if the State has 
not yet adopted a new long-range statewide transportation plan under 
the provisions of this part, as long as the underlying transportation 
planning process is consistent with the requirements in the MAP-21.
    (d) On or after [2 years after the publication date of the final 
rule], a State may make an administrative modification to a STIP that 
conforms to either the SAFETEA-LU requirements or to the provisions and 
requirements of this part.
    (e) Two years from the effective date of each rule establishing 
performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), 49 U.S.C. 5326, or 49 
U.S.C. 5329, FHWA/FTA will only approve an updated or amended STIP that 
is based on a statewide transportation planning process that meets the 
performance-based planning requirements in this part and in such a 
rule.
    (f) Prior to 2 years from the effective date of each rule 
establishing performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), 49 U.S.C. 
5326, or 49 U.S.C. 5329, a State may adopt a long-range statewide 
transportation plan that it has developed using the SAFETEA-LU 
requirements or the performance-based provisions and requirements of 
this part and in such a rule. Two years on or after the effective date 
of each rule establishing performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), 
49 U.S.C. 5326, or 49 U.S.C. 5329, a State may only adopt a long-range 
statewide transportation plan that it has developed according to the 
performance-based provisions and requirements of this part and in such 
a rule.

Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming


Sec.  450.300  Purpose.

    The purposes of this subpart are to implement the provisions of 23 
U.S.C. 134, 23 U.S.C. 150, and 49 U.S.C. 5303, as amended, which:
    (a) Set forth the national policy that the MPO designated for each 
urbanized area is to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and 
comprehensive performance-based multimodal transportation planning 
process, including the development of a metropolitan transportation 
plan and a TIP, that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient 
development, management, and operation of surface transportation 
systems to serve the mobility needs of people and freight (including 
accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) 
and foster economic growth and development, while minimizing 
transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution; and
    (b) Encourages continued development and improvement of 
metropolitan transportation planning processes guided by the planning 
factors set forth in 23 U.S.C. 134(h) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h).


Sec.  450.302  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to organizations and 
entities responsible for the transportation planning and programming 
processes in metropolitan planning areas.

[[Page 31824]]

Sec.  450.304  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 subpart 
as so defined.


Sec.  450.306  Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning 
process.

    (a) To accomplish the objectives in Sec. Sec.  450.300 and 
450.306(b), metropolitan planning organizations designated under Sec.  
450.310, in cooperation with the State and public transportation 
operators, shall develop long-range transportation plans and TIPs 
through a performance-driven, outcome-based approach to planning for 
metropolitan areas of the State.
    (b) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall be 
continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive, and provide for 
consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services 
that will address the following factors:
    (1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, 
especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and 
efficiency;
    (2) Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized 
and non-motorized users;
    (3) Increase the security of the transportation system for 
motorized and non-motorized users;
    (4) Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight;
    (5) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy 
conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency 
between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth 
and economic development patterns;
    (6) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation 
system, across and between modes, for people and freight;
    (7) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
    (8) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation 
system.
    (c) Consideration of the planning factors in paragraph (b) of this 
section shall be reflected, as appropriate, in the metropolitan 
transportation planning process. The degree of consideration and 
analysis of the factors should be based on the scale and complexity of 
many issues, including transportation system development, land use, 
employment, economic development, human and natural environment 
(including Section 4(f) properties as defined in 23 CFR 774.17), and 
housing and community development.
    (d) Performance-based approach. (1) The metropolitan transportation 
planning process shall provide for the establishment and use of a 
performance-based approach to transportation decisionmaking to support 
the national goals described in 23 U.S.C. 150(b) and the general 
purposes described in 49 U.S.C. 5301(c).
    (2) Establishment of performance targets by metropolitan planning 
organizations. (i) Each metropolitan planning organization shall 
establish performance targets that address the performance measures or 
standards established under 23 CFR part 490 (where applicable), 49 
U.S.C. 5326(c), and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) to use in tracking progress 
toward attainment of critical outcomes for the region of the 
metropolitan planning organization.
    (ii) The selection of targets that address performance measures 
described in 23 U.S.C. 150(c) shall be in accordance with the 
appropriate target setting framework established at 23 CFR part 490, 
and shall be coordinated with the relevant State(s) to ensure 
consistency, to the maximum extent practicable.
    (iii) The selection of performance targets that address performance 
measures described in 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) shall be 
coordinated, to the maximum extent practicable, with public 
transportation providers to ensure consistency with the performance 
targets that public transportation providers establish under 49 U.S.C. 
5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
    (3) Each MPO shall establish the performance targets under 
paragraph (d)(2) not later than 180 days after the date on which the 
relevant State or provider of public transportation establishes the 
performance targets.
    (4) An MPO shall integrate in the metropolitan transportation 
planning process, directly or by reference, the goals, objectives, 
performance measures, and targets described in other State 
transportation plans and transportation processes, as well as any plans 
developed under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 by providers of public 
transportation, required as part of a performance-based program 
including:
    (i) The NHS asset management plan, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 119(e) 
and the Transit Asset Management Plan, as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326;
    (ii) Applicable portions of the HSIP, including the SHSP, as 
specified in 23 U.S.C. 148;
    (iii) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan in 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d);
    (iv) Other safety and security planning and review processes, 
plans, and programs, as appropriate;
    (v) The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 
performance plan in 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as applicable;
    (v) Appropriate (metropolitan) portions of the State Freight Plan 
(MAP-21 sec. 1118);
    (vi) The congestion management process, as defined in 23 CFR 
450.322, if applicable; and
    (vii) Other State transportation plans and transportation processes 
required as part of a performance-based program.
    (e) The failure to consider any factor specified in paragraph (b) 
or (d) of this section shall not be reviewable by any court under title 
23 U.S.C., 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, subchapter II of title 5, U.S.C. 
Chapter 5, or title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 7 in any matter affecting a 
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, a project or strategy, or the 
certification of a metropolitan transportation planning process.
    (f) An MPO shall carry out the metropolitan transportation planning 
process in coordination with the statewide transportation planning 
process required by 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5304.
    (g) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall (to the 
maximum extent practicable) be consistent with the development of 
applicable regional intelligent transportation systems (ITS) 
architectures, as defined in 23 CFR part 940.
    (h) Preparation of the coordinated public transit-human services 
transportation plan, as required by 49 U.S.C. 5310, should be 
coordinated and consistent with the metropolitan transportation 
planning process.
    (i) In an urbanized area not designated as a TMA that is an air 
quality attainment area, the MPO(s) may propose and submit to the FHWA 
and the FTA for approval a procedure for developing an abbreviated 
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP. In developing proposed 
simplified planning procedures, consideration shall be given to whether 
the abbreviated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP will achieve 
the purposes of 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and these regulations, 
taking into account the complexity of the transportation problems in 
the area. The MPO shall develop simplified procedures in cooperation 
with the State(s) and public transportation operator(s).


Sec.  450.308  Funding for transportation planning and unified planning 
work programs.

    (a) Funds provided under 23 U.S.C. 104(d), 49 U.S.C. 5305(d), and 
49 U.S.C. 5307, are available to MPOs to accomplish activities 
described in this subpart. At the State's option, funds

[[Page 31825]]

provided under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2) and 23 U.S.C. 505 may also be 
provided to MPOs for metropolitan transportation planning. At the 
option of the State and transit operator(s), funds provided under 49 
U.S.C. 5305(e) may also be provided to MPOs for activities that support 
metropolitan transportation planning. In addition, an MPO serving an 
urbanized area with a population over 200,000, as designated by the 
Bureau of the Census, may at its discretion use funds sub-allocated 
under 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(4) for metropolitan transportation planning 
activities.
    (b) An MPO shall document metropolitan transportation planning 
activities performed with funds provided under title 23 U.S.C. and 
title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 in a unified planning work program (UPWP) or 
simplified statement of work in accordance with the provisions of this 
section and 23 CFR part 420.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each MPO, 
in cooperation with the State(s) and public transportation operator(s), 
shall develop a UPWP that includes a discussion of the planning 
priorities facing the MPA. The UPWP shall identify work proposed for 
the next 1- or 2-year period by major activity and task (including 
activities that address the planning factors in Sec.  450.306(b)), in 
sufficient detail to indicate who (e.g., MPO, State, public 
transportation operator, local government, or consultant) will perform 
the work, the schedule for completing the work, the resulting products, 
the proposed funding by activity/task, and a summary of the total 
amounts and sources of Federal and matching funds.
    (d) With the prior approval of the State and the FHWA and the FTA, 
an MPO in an area not designated as a TMA may prepare a simplified 
statement of work, in cooperation with the State(s) and the public 
transportation operator(s), in lieu of a UPWP. A simplified statement 
of work shall include a description of the major activities to be 
performed during the next 1- or 2-year period, who (e.g., State, MPO, 
public transportation operator, local government, or consultant) will 
perform the work, the resulting products, and a summary of the total 
amounts and sources of Federal and matching funds. If a simplified 
statement of work is used, it may be submitted as part of the State's 
planning work program, in accordance with 23 CFR part 420.
    (e) Arrangements may be made with the FHWA and the FTA to combine 
the UPWP or simplified statement of work with the work program(s) for 
other Federal planning funds.
    (f) Administrative requirements for UPWPs and simplified statements 
of work are contained in 23 CFR part 420 and FTA Circular C8100, as 
amended (Program Guidance for Metropolitan Planning and State Planning 
and Research Program Grants).


Sec.  450.310  Metropolitan planning organization designation and 
redesignation.

    (a) To carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process 
under this subpart, an MPO shall be designated for each urbanized area 
with a population of more than 50,000 individuals (as determined by the 
Bureau of the Census).
    (b) MPO designation shall be made by agreement between the Governor 
and units of general purpose local government that together represent 
at least 75 percent of the affected population (including the largest 
incorporated city, based on population, as named by the Bureau of the 
Census) or in accordance with procedures established by applicable 
State or local law.
    (c) The FHWA and the FTA shall identify as a TMA each urbanized 
area with a population of over 200,000 individuals, as defined by the 
Bureau of the Census. The FHWA and the FTA shall also designate any 
urbanized area as a TMA on the request of the Governor and the MPO 
designated for that area.
    (d) TMA structure. (1) Not later than October 1, 2014, each 
metropolitan planning organization that serves a designated TMA shall 
consist of:
    (i) Local elected officials;
    (ii) Officials of public agencies that administer or operate major 
modes of transportation in the metropolitan area, including 
representation by providers of public transportation; and
    (iii) Appropriate State officials.
    (2) An MPO may be restructured to meet the requirements of this 
paragraph (d) without undertaking a redesignation.
    (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with 
the authority, under any State law in effect on December 18, 1991, of a 
public agency with multimodal transportation responsibilities:
    (i) To develop the plans and TIPs for adoption by an MPO; and
    (ii) To develop long-range capital plans, coordinate transit 
services and projects, and carry out other activities pursuant to State 
law.
    (e) To the extent possible, only one MPO shall be designated for 
each urbanized area or group of contiguous urbanized areas. More than 
one MPO may be designated to serve an urbanized area only if the 
Governor(s) and the existing MPO, if applicable, determine that the 
size and complexity of the urbanized area make designation of more than 
one MPO appropriate. In those cases where two or more MPOs serve the 
same urbanized area, the MPOs shall establish official, written 
agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination and the division 
of transportation planning responsibilities among the MPOs.
    (f) Nothing in this subpart shall be deemed to prohibit an MPO from 
using the staff resources of other agencies, non-profit organizations, 
or contractors to carry out selected elements of the metropolitan 
transportation planning process.
    (g) An MPO designation shall remain in effect until an official 
redesignation has been made in accordance with this section.
    (h) An existing MPO may be redesignated only by agreement between 
the Governor and units of general purpose local government that 
together represent at least 75 percent of the existing metropolitan 
planning area population (including the largest incorporated city, 
based on population, as named by the Bureau of the Census).
    (i) For the purposes of redesignation, units of general purpose 
local government may be defined as elected officials from each unit of 
general purpose local government located within the metropolitan 
planning area served by the existing MPO.
    (j) Redesignation of an MPO (in accordance with the provisions of 
this section) is required whenever the existing MPO proposes to make:
    (1) A substantial change in the proportion of voting members on the 
existing MPO representing the largest incorporated city, other units of 
general purpose local government served by the MPO, and the State(s); 
or
    (2) A substantial change in the decisionmaking authority or 
responsibility of the MPO, or in decisionmaking procedures established 
under MPO by-laws.
    (k) Redesignation of an MPO serving a multistate metropolitan 
planning area requires agreement between the Governors of each State 
served by the existing MPO and units of general purpose local 
government that together represent at least 75 percent of the existing 
metropolitan planning area population (including the largest 
incorporated city, based on population, as named by the Bureau of the 
Census).
    (l) The following changes to an MPO do not require a redesignation 
(as long as they do not trigger a substantial

[[Page 31826]]

change as described in paragraph (j) of this section):
    (1) The identification of a new urbanized area (as determined by 
the Bureau of the Census) within an existing metropolitan planning 
area;
    (2) Adding members to the MPO that represent new units of general 
purpose local government resulting from expansion of the metropolitan 
planning area;
    (3) Adding members to satisfy the specific membership requirements 
described in paragraph (d) for an MPO that serves a TMA; or
    (4) Periodic rotation of members representing units of general-
purpose local government, as established under MPO by-laws.
    (m) Each Governor with responsibility for a portion of a multistate 
metropolitan area and the appropriate MPOs shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide coordinated transportation planning for the entire 
MPA. The consent of Congress is granted to any two or more States to:
    (1) Enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law 
of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in 
support of activities authorized under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 
as the activities pertain to interstate areas and localities within the 
States; and
    (2) Establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as the States may 
determine desirable for making the agreements and compacts effective.


Sec.  450.312  Metropolitan planning area boundaries.

    (a) The boundaries of a metropolitan planning area (MPA) shall be 
determined by agreement between the MPO and the Governor.
    (1) At a minimum, the MPA boundaries shall encompass the entire 
existing urbanized area (as defined by the Bureau of the Census) plus 
the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year 
forecast period for the metropolitan transportation plan.
    (2) The MPA boundaries may be further expanded to encompass the 
entire metropolitan statistical area or combined statistical area, as 
defined by the Office of Management and Budget.
    (b) An MPO that serves an urbanized area designated as a 
nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) as of August 10, 2005, shall retain the MPA 
boundary that existed on August 10, 2005. The MPA boundaries for such 
MPOs may only be adjusted by agreement of the Governor and the affected 
MPO in accordance with the redesignation procedures described in Sec.  
450.310(h). The MPA boundary for an MPO that serves an urbanized area 
designated as a nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under 
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) after August 10, 2005, may 
be established to coincide with the designated boundaries of the ozone 
and/or carbon monoxide nonattainment area, in accordance with the 
requirements in Sec.  450.310(b).
    (c) An MPA boundary may encompass more than one urbanized area.
    (d) MPA boundaries may be established to coincide with the 
geography of regional economic development and growth forecasting 
areas.
    (e) Identification of new urbanized areas within an existing 
metropolitan planning area by the Bureau of the Census shall not 
require redesignation of the existing MPO.
    (f) Where the boundaries of the urbanized area or MPA extend across 
two or more States, the Governors with responsibility for a portion of 
the multistate area, the appropriate MPO(s), and the public 
transportation operator(s) are strongly encouraged to coordinate 
transportation planning for the entire multistate area.
    (g) The MPA boundaries shall not overlap with each other.
    (h) Where part of an urbanized area served by one MPO extends into 
an adjacent MPA, the MPOs shall, at a minimum, establish written 
agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination and the division 
of transportation planning responsibilities among and between the MPOs. 
Alternatively, the MPOs may adjust their existing boundaries so that 
the entire urbanized area lies within only one MPA. Boundary 
adjustments that change the composition of the MPO may require 
redesignation of one or more such MPOs.
    (i) The MPO (in cooperation with the State and public 
transportation operator(s)) shall review the MPA boundaries after each 
Census to determine if existing MPA boundaries meet the minimum 
statutory requirements for new and updated urbanized area(s), and shall 
adjust them as necessary. As appropriate, additional adjustments should 
be made to reflect the most comprehensive boundary to foster an 
effective planning process that ensures connectivity between modes, 
improves access to modal systems, and promotes efficient overall 
transportation investment strategies.
    (j) Following MPA boundary approval by the MPO and the Governor, 
the MPA boundary descriptions shall be provided for informational 
purposes to the FHWA and the FTA. The MPA boundary descriptions shall 
be submitted either as a geo-spatial database or described in 
sufficient detail to enable the boundaries to be accurately delineated 
on a map.


Sec.  450.314  Metropolitan planning agreements.

    (a) The MPO, the State(s), and the providers of public 
transportation shall cooperatively determine their mutual 
responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation 
planning process. These responsibilities shall be clearly identified in 
written agreements among the MPO, the State(s), and the providers of 
public transportation serving the MPA. To the extent possible, a single 
agreement between all responsible parties should be developed. The 
written agreement(s) shall include specific provisions for 
cooperatively developing and sharing information related to 
transportation systems performance data, the selection of performance 
targets, the reporting of performance targets, the reporting of system 
performance to be used in tracking progress toward attainment of 
critical outcomes for the region of the MPO (see Sec.  450.306(d)), the 
collection of data for the asset management plans for the NHS, the 
development of financial plans that support the metropolitan 
transportation plan (see Sec.  450.324) and the metropolitan TIP (see 
Sec.  450.326), and development of the annual listing of obligated 
projects (see Sec.  450.334).
    (b) The MPO, the State(s), and the providers of public 
transportation should periodically review and update the agreement, as 
appropriate, to reflect effective changes.
    (c) If the MPA does not include the entire nonattainment or 
maintenance area, there shall be a written 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 MPA within the nonattainment 
or maintenance area. The agreement must also indicate how the total 
transportation-related emissions for the nonattainment or maintenance 
area, including areas outside the MPA, will be treated for the purposes 
of determining conformity in accordance with the EPA's transportation 
conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). The agreement shall 
address policy mechanisms for resolving conflicts concerning 
transportation-related emissions that may arise between the MPA and the 
portion of the

[[Page 31827]]

nonattainment or maintenance area outside the MPA.
    (d) In nonattainment or maintenance areas, if the MPO is not the 
designated agency for air quality planning under section 174 of the 
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), there shall be a written agreement 
between the MPO and the designated air quality planning agency 
describing their respective roles and responsibilities for air quality 
related transportation planning.
    (e) If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an urbanized 
area, there shall be a written agreement among the MPOs, the State(s), 
and the public transportation operator(s) describing how the 
metropolitan transportation planning processes will be coordinated to 
assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans 
and TIPs across the MPA boundaries, particularly in cases in which a 
proposed transportation investment extends across the boundaries of 
more than one MPA. The written agreement shall include specific 
provisions for cooperatively developing and sharing information related 
to transportation systems performance data, the selection of 
performance targets, the reporting of performance targets, the 
reporting of system performance to be used in tracking progress toward 
attainment of critical outcomes for the region of the MPO (see Sec.  
450.306(d)), and the collection of data for the asset management plans 
for the NHS. If any part of the urbanized area is a nonattainment or 
maintenance area, the agreement also shall include State and local air 
quality agencies. The metropolitan transportation planning processes 
for affected MPOs should, to the maximum extent possible, reflect 
coordinated data collection, analysis, and planning assumptions across 
the MPAs. Alternatively, a single metropolitan transportation plan and/
or TIP for the entire urbanized area may be developed jointly by the 
MPOs in cooperation with their respective planning partners. 
Coordination efforts and outcomes shall be documented in subsequent 
transmittals of the UPWP and other planning products, including the 
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP, to the State(s), the FHWA, 
and the FTA.
    (f) Where the boundaries of the urbanized area or MPA extend across 
two or more States, the Governors with responsibility for a portion of 
the multistate area, the appropriate MPO(s), and the public 
transportation operator(s) shall coordinate transportation planning for 
the entire multistate area. States involved in such multistate 
transportation planning may:
    (1) Enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law 
of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in 
support of activities authorized under this section as the activities 
pertain to interstate areas and localities within the States; and
    (2) Establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as the States may 
determine desirable for making the agreements and compacts effective.
    (g) If part of an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA 
overlaps into an adjacent MPA serving an urbanized area that is not 
designated as a TMA, the adjacent urbanized area shall not be treated 
as a TMA. However, a written agreement shall be established between the 
MPOs with MPA boundaries including a portion of the TMA, which clearly 
identifies the roles and responsibilities of each MPO in meeting 
specific TMA requirements (e.g., congestion management process, Surface 
Transportation Program funds suballocated to the urbanized area over 
200,000 population, and project selection). The written agreement shall 
include specific provisions for cooperatively developing and sharing 
information related to transportation systems performance data, the 
selection of performance targets, the reporting of performance targets, 
the reporting of system performance to be used in tracking progress 
toward attainment of critical outcomes for the region of the MPO (see 
Sec.  450.306(d)), and the collection of data for the asset management 
plans for the NHS.


Sec.  450.316  Interested parties, participation, and consultation.

    (a) The MPO shall develop and use a documented participation plan 
that defines a process for providing individuals, affected public 
agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight 
shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private 
providers of transportation, representatives of users of public 
transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and 
bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and 
other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved 
in the metropolitan transportation planning process.
    (1) The MPO shall develop the participation plan in consultation 
with all interested parties and shall, at a minimum, describe explicit 
procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for:
    (i) Providing adequate public notice of public participation 
activities and time for public review and comment at key decision 
points, including a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed 
metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP;
    (ii) Providing timely notice and reasonable access to information 
about transportation issues and processes;
    (iii) Employing visualization techniques to describe metropolitan 
transportation plans and TIPs;
    (iv) Making public information (technical information and meeting 
notices) available in electronically accessible formats and means, such 
as the World Wide Web;
    (v) Holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible 
locations and times;
    (vi) Demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public 
input received during the development of the metropolitan 
transportation plan and the TIP;
    (vii) Seeking out and considering the needs of those traditionally 
underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low-income and 
minority households, who may face challenges accessing employment and 
other services;
    (viii) Providing an additional opportunity for public comment, if 
the final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP differs significantly 
from the version that was made available for public comment by the MPO 
and raises new material issues that interested parties could not 
reasonably have foreseen from the public involvement efforts;
    (ix) Coordinating with the statewide transportation planning public 
involvement and consultation processes under subpart B of this part; 
and
    (x) Periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the procedures and 
strategies contained in the participation plan to ensure a full and 
open participation process.
    (2) When significant written and oral comments are received on the 
draft metropolitan transportation plan and TIP (including the financial 
plans) as a result of the participation process in this section or the 
interagency consultation process required under the EPA transportation 
conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A), a summary, 
analysis, and report on the disposition of comments shall be made as 
part of the final metropolitan transportation plan and TIP.
    (3) A minimum public comment period of 45 calendar days shall be 
provided before the initial or revised participation plan is adopted by 
the MPO. Copies of the approved participation plan shall be provided to 
the FHWA and the FTA for informational purposes and shall be

[[Page 31828]]

posted on the World Wide Web, to the maximum extent practicable.
    (b) In developing metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, the 
MPO should consult with agencies and officials responsible for other 
planning activities within the MPA that are affected by transportation 
(including State and local planned growth, economic development, 
environmental protection, airport operations, or freight movements) or 
coordinate its planning process (to the maximum extent practicable) 
with such planning activities. In addition, the MPO shall develop the 
metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs with due consideration of 
other related planning activities within the metropolitan area, and the 
process shall provide for the design and delivery of transportation 
services within the area that are provided by:
    (1) Recipients of assistance under title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53;
    (2) Governmental agencies and non-profit organizations (including 
representatives of the agencies and organizations) that receive Federal 
assistance from a source other than the U.S. Department of 
Transportation to provide non-emergency transportation services; and
    (3) Recipients of assistance under 23 U.S.C. 201-204.
    (c) When the MPA includes Indian Tribal lands, the MPO shall 
appropriately involve the Indian Tribal government(s) in the 
development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP.
    (d) When the MPA includes Federal public lands, the MPO shall 
appropriately involve the Federal land management agencies in the 
development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP.
    (e) MPOs shall, to the extent practicable, develop a documented 
process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key decision 
points for consulting with other governments and agencies, as defined 
in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, which may be included 
in the agreement(s) developed under Sec.  450.314.


Sec.  450.318  Transportation planning studies and project development.

    (a) Pursuant to section 1308 of the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century, TEA-21 (Pub. L. 105-178), an MPO(s), State(s), or 
public transportation operator(s) may undertake a multimodal, systems-
level corridor or subarea planning study as part of the metropolitan 
transportation planning process. To the extent practicable, development 
of these transportation planning studies shall involve consultation 
with, or joint efforts among, the MPO(s), State(s), and/or public 
transportation operator(s). The results or decisions of these 
transportation planning studies may be used as part of the overall 
project development process consistent with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and associated 
implementing regulations (23 CFR part 771 and 40 CFR parts 1500-1508). 
Specifically, these corridor or subarea studies may result in producing 
any of the following for a proposed transportation project:
    (1) Purpose and need or goals and objective statement(s);
    (2) General travel corridor and/or general mode(s) definition 
(e.g., highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination);
    (3) Preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of 
unreasonable alternatives;
    (4) Basic description of the environmental setting; and/or
    (5) Preliminary identification of environmental impacts and 
environmental mitigation.
    (b) Publicly available documents or other source material produced 
by, or in support of, the transportation planning process described in 
this subpart may be incorporated directly or by reference into 
subsequent NEPA documents, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21, if:
    (1) The NEPA lead agencies agree that such incorporation will aid 
in establishing or evaluating the purpose and need for the Federal 
action, reasonable alternatives, cumulative or other impacts on the 
human and natural environment, or mitigation of these impacts; and
    (2) The systems-level, corridor, or subarea planning study is 
conducted with:
    (i) Involvement of interested State, local, Tribal, and Federal 
agencies;
    (ii) Public review;
    (iii) Reasonable opportunity to comment during the metropolitan 
transportation planning process and development of the corridor or 
subarea planning study;
    (iv) Documentation of relevant decisions in a form that is 
identifiable and available for review during the NEPA scoping process 
and can be appended to or referenced in the NEPA document; and
    (v) The review of the FHWA and the FTA, as appropriate.
    (c) By agreement of the NEPA lead agencies, the above integration 
may be accomplished through tiering (as described in 40 CFR 1502.20), 
incorporating the subarea or corridor planning study into the draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment, or 
other means that the NEPA lead agencies deem appropriate.
    (d) Additional information to further explain the linkages between 
the transportation planning and project development/NEPA processes is 
contained in Appendix A to this part, including an explanation that it 
is non-binding guidance material.


Sec.  450.320  Development of Programmatic Mitigation Plans.

    (a) An MPO may develop programmatic mitigation plans to address the 
potential environmental impacts of future transportation projects. The 
MPO will determine the scope of the programmatic mitigation plan, in 
consultation with the FHWA and/or the FTA and with the agency or 
agencies with jurisdiction and special expertise over the resources 
being addressed in the plan.
    (1) Scope. (i) An MPO may develop a programmatic mitigation plan on 
a local, regional, ecosystem, watershed, statewide or similar scale.
    (ii) The plan may encompass multiple environmental resources within 
a defined geographic area(s) or may focus on a specific type(s) of 
resource(s) such as aquatic resources, parkland, or wildlife habitat.
    (iii) The plan may address or consider impacts from all projects in 
a defined geographic area(s) or may focus on a specific type(s) of 
project(s).
    (2) Contents. The programmatic mitigation plan may include:
    (i) An assessment of the existing condition of natural and human 
environmental resources within the area covered by the plan, including 
an assessment of historic and recent trends and/or any potential 
threats to those resources;
    (ii) An identification of economic, social, and natural and human 
environmental resources within the geographic area that may be impacted 
and considered for mitigation. Examples of these resources include 
wetlands, streams, rivers, stormwater, parklands, cultural resources, 
historic resources, farmlands, and threatened or endangered species 
critical habitat. This may include the identification of areas of high 
conservation concern or value and thus worthy of avoidance;
    (iii) An inventory of existing or planned environmental resource 
banks for the impacted resource categories such as wetland, stream, 
habitat, species, and an inventory of federally, State, or locally 
approved in-lieu-of-fee programs;

[[Page 31829]]

    (iv) An assessment of potential opportunities to improve the 
overall quality of the identified environmental resources through 
strategic mitigation for impacts of transportation projects which may 
include the prioritization of parcels or areas for acquisition and/or 
potential resource banking sites;
    (v) An adoption or development of standard measures or operating 
procedures for mitigating certain types of impacts; establishment of 
parameters for determining or calculating appropriate mitigation for 
certain types of impacts, such as mitigation ratios, or criteria for 
determining appropriate mitigation sites;
    (vi) Adaptive management procedures, such as protocols or 
procedures that involve monitoring actual impacts against predicted 
impacts over time and adjusting mitigation measures in response to 
information gathered through the monitoring;
    (vii) Acknowledgement of specific statutory or regulatory 
requirements that must be satisfied when determining appropriate 
mitigation for certain types of resources.
    (b) If an MPO chooses to develop a programmatic mitigation plan 
then the MPO shall develop it as part of the metropolitan 
transportation planning process, considering the following process 
prior to adopting a programmatic mitigation plan:
    (1) Consult with each agency with jurisdiction over the 
environmental resources considered in the programmatic mitigation plan;
    (2) Make available a draft of the programmatic mitigation plan for 
review and comment by appropriate environmental resource agencies and 
the public;
    (3) Consider comments received from such agencies and the public on 
the draft plan; and
    (4) Address such comments in the final programmatic mitigation 
plan.
    (c) A programmatic mitigation plan may be integrated with other 
plans, including watershed plans, ecosystem plans, species recovery 
plans, growth management plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, and land 
use plans.
    (d) If an MPO develops a programmatic mitigation plan pursuant to 
this section, any Federal agency responsible for environmental reviews, 
permits, or approvals for a transportation project may use the 
recommendations in the programmatic mitigation plan when carrying out 
its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) and any other environmental laws 
and regulations.
    (e) Nothing in this section limits the use of programmatic 
approaches for reviews under NEPA.


Sec.  450.322  Congestion management process in transportation 
management areas.

    (a) The transportation planning process in a TMA shall address 
congestion management through a process that provides for safe and 
effective integrated management and operation of the multimodal 
transportation system, based on a cooperatively developed and 
implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing 
transportation facilities eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. 
and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 through the use of travel demand 
reduction and operational management strategies.
    (b) The development of a congestion management process should 
result in multimodal system performance measures and strategies that 
can be reflected in the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP.
    (c) The level of system performance deemed acceptable by State and 
local transportation officials may vary by type of transportation 
facility, geographic location (metropolitan area or subarea), and/or 
time of day. In addition, consideration should be given to strategies 
that manage demand, reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel, 
improve transportation system management and operations, and improve 
efficient service integration within and across modes, including 
highway, transit, passenger and freight rail operations, and non-
motorized transport. Where the addition of general purpose lanes is 
determined to be an appropriate congestion management strategy, 
explicit consideration is to be given to the incorporation of 
appropriate features into the SOV project to facilitate future demand 
management strategies and operational improvements that will maintain 
the functional integrity and safety of those lanes.
    (d) The congestion management process shall be developed, 
established, and implemented as part of the metropolitan transportation 
planning process that includes coordination with transportation system 
management and operations activities. The congestion management process 
shall include:
    (1) Methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of the 
multimodal transportation system, identify the underlying causes of 
recurring and non-recurring congestion, identify and evaluate 
alternative strategies, provide information supporting the 
implementation of actions, and evaluate the effectiveness of 
implemented actions;
    (2) Definition of congestion management objectives and appropriate 
performance measures to assess the extent of congestion and support the 
evaluation of the effectiveness of congestion reduction and mobility 
enhancement strategies for the movement of people and goods. Since 
levels of acceptable system performance may vary among local 
communities, performance measures should be tailored to the specific 
needs of the area and established cooperatively by the State(s), 
affected MPO(s), and local officials in consultation with the operators 
of major modes of transportation in the coverage area, including 
providers of public transportation;
    (3) Establishment of a coordinated program for data collection and 
system performance monitoring to define the extent and duration of 
congestion, to contribute in determining the causes of congestion, and 
evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions. To 
the extent possible, this data collection program should be coordinated 
with existing data sources (including archived operational/ITS data) 
and coordinated with operations managers in the metropolitan area;
    (4) Identification and evaluation of the anticipated performance 
and expected benefits of appropriate congestion management strategies 
that will contribute to the more effective use and improved safety of 
existing and future transportation systems based on the established 
performance measures. The following categories of strategies, or 
combinations of strategies, are some examples of what should be 
appropriately considered for each area:
    (i) Demand management measures, including growth management, and 
congestion pricing;
    (ii) Traffic operational improvements;
    (iii) Public transportation improvements;
    (iv) ITS technologies as related to the regional ITS architecture; 
and
    (v) Where necessary, additional system capacity.
    (5) Identification of an implementation schedule, implementation 
responsibilities, and possible funding sources for each strategy (or 
combination of strategies) proposed for implementation; and
    (6) Implementation of a process for periodic assessment of the 
effectiveness of implemented strategies, in terms of the area's 
established performance

[[Page 31830]]

measures. The results of this evaluation shall be provided to decision 
makers and the public to provide guidance on selection of effective 
strategies for future implementation.
    (e) In a TMA designated as nonattainment area for ozone or carbon 
monoxide pursuant to the Clean Air Act, Federal funds may not be 
programmed for any project that will result in a significant increase 
in the carrying capacity for SOVs (i.e., 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 is addressed through a congestion management process meeting 
the requirements of this section.
    (f) In TMAs designated as nonattainment for ozone or carbon 
monoxide, the congestion management process shall provide an 
appropriate analysis of reasonable (including multimodal) travel demand 
reduction and operational management strategies for the corridor in 
which a project that will result in a significant increase in capacity 
for SOVs (as described in paragraph (d) of this section) is proposed to 
be advanced with Federal funds. If the analysis demonstrates that 
travel demand reduction and operational management strategies cannot 
fully satisfy the need for additional capacity in the corridor and 
additional SOV capacity is warranted, then the congestion management 
process shall identify all reasonable strategies to manage the SOV 
facility safely and effectively (or to facilitate its management in the 
future). Other travel demand reduction and operational management 
strategies appropriate for the corridor, but not appropriate for 
incorporation into the SOV facility itself, shall also be identified 
through the congestion management process. All identified reasonable 
travel demand reduction and operational management strategies shall be 
incorporated into the SOV project or committed to by the State and MPO 
for implementation.
    (g) State laws, rules, or regulations pertaining to congestion 
management systems or programs may constitute the congestion management 
process, if the FHWA and the FTA find that the State laws, rules, or 
regulations are consistent with, and fulfill the intent of, the 
purposes of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.


Sec.  450.324  Development and content of the metropolitan 
transportation plan.

    (a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include 
the development of a transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-
year planning horizon as of the effective date. In formulating the 
transportation plan, the MPO shall consider factors described in Sec.  
450.306 as the factors relate to a 20-year forecast period. In 
nonattainment and maintenance areas, the effective date of the 
transportation plan shall be the date of a conformity determination 
issued by the FHWA and the FTA. In attainment areas, the effective date 
of the transportation plan shall be its date of adoption by the MPO.
    (b) The transportation plan shall include both long-range and 
short-range strategies/actions that provide for the development of an 
integrated multimodal transportation system (including accessible 
pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) to 
facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in 
addressing current and future transportation demand.
    (c) The MPO shall review and update the transportation plan at 
least every 4 years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas 
and at least every 5 years in attainment areas to confirm the 
transportation plan's validity and consistency with current and 
forecasted transportation and land use conditions and trends and to 
extend the forecast period to at least a 20-year planning horizon. In 
addition, the MPO may revise the transportation plan at any time using 
the procedures in this section without a requirement to extend the 
horizon year. The MPO shall approve the transportation plan (and any 
revisions) and submit it for information purposes to the Governor. 
Copies of any updated or revised transportation plans must be provided 
to the FHWA and the FTA.
    (d) In metropolitan areas that are in nonattainment for ozone or 
carbon monoxide, the MPO shall coordinate the development of the 
metropolitan transportation plan with the process for developing 
transportation control measures (TCMs) in a State Implementation Plan 
(SIP).
    (e) The MPO, the State(s), and the public transportation 
operator(s) shall validate data used in preparing other existing modal 
plans for providing input to the transportation plan. In updating the 
transportation plan, the MPO shall base the update on the latest 
available estimates and assumptions for population, land use, travel, 
employment, congestion, and economic activity. The MPO shall approve 
transportation plan contents and supporting analyses produced by a 
transportation plan update.
    (f) The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at a minimum, 
include:
    (1) The current and projected transportation demand of persons and 
goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of the 
transportation plan;
    (2) Existing and proposed transportation facilities (including 
major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, 
nonmotorized transportation facilities (e.g., pedestrian walkways and 
bicycle facilities), and intermodal connectors) that should function as 
an integrated metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to 
those facilities that serve important national and regional 
transportation functions over the period of the transportation plan;
    (3) A description of the performance measures and performance 
targets used in assessing the performance of the transportation system 
in accordance with Sec.  450.306(d);
    (4) A system performance report and subsequent updates evaluating 
the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect 
to the performance targets described in Sec.  450.306(d), including:
    (i) Progress achieved by the metropolitan planning organization in 
meeting the performance targets in comparison with system performance 
recorded in previous reports, including baseline data; and
    (ii) For metropolitan planning organizations that voluntarily elect 
to develop multiple scenarios, an analysis of how the preferred 
scenario has improved the conditions and performance of the 
transportation system and how changes in local policies and investments 
have impacted the costs necessary to achieve the identified performance 
targets.
    (5) Operational and management strategies to improve the 
performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular 
congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods;
    (6) Consideration of the results of the congestion management 
process in TMAs that meet the requirements of this subpart, including 
the identification of SOV projects that result from a congestion 
management process in TMAs that are nonattainment for ozone or carbon 
monoxide;
    (7) Assessment of capital investment and other strategies to 
preserve the existing and projected future metropolitan transportation 
infrastructure and provide for multimodal capacity increases based on 
regional priorities and needs. The metropolitan transportation plan 
should

[[Page 31831]]

be informed by the financial plan and investment strategies from the 
State asset management plan for the NHS (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 
119(e)) and investment priorities of the public transit asset 
management plan(s) (as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326). The metropolitan 
transportation plan may consider projects and strategies that address 
areas or corridors where current or projected congestion threatens the 
efficient functioning of key elements of the metropolitan area's 
transportation system;
    (8) Transportation and transit enhancement activities, including 
transportation alternatives, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), and 
associated transit improvements, as described in 49 U.S.C. 5302(a), as 
appropriate;
    (9) Design concept and design scope descriptions of all existing 
and proposed transportation facilities in sufficient detail, regardless 
of funding source, in nonattainment and maintenance areas for 
conformity determinations under the EPA's transportation conformity 
regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). In all areas (regardless of 
air quality designation), all proposed improvements shall be described 
in sufficient detail to develop cost estimates;
    (10) A discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation 
activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including 
activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain 
the environmental functions affected by the metropolitan transportation 
plan. The discussion may focus on policies, programs, or strategies, 
rather than at the project level. The MPO shall develop the discussion 
in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land management, 
wildlife, and regulatory agencies. The MPO may establish reasonable 
timeframes for performing this consultation;
    (11) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted 
transportation plan can be implemented;
    (i) For purposes of transportation system operations and 
maintenance, the financial plan shall contain system-level estimates of 
costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available 
to adequately operate and maintain the Federal-aid highways (as defined 
by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 
49 U.S.C. Chapter 53).
    (ii) For the purpose of developing the metropolitan transportation 
plan, the MPO, public transportation operator(s), and State shall 
cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to 
support metropolitan transportation plan implementation, as required 
under Sec.  450.314(a). All necessary financial resources from public 
and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available 
to carry out the transportation plan shall be identified.
    (iii) The financial plan shall include recommendations on any 
additional financing strategies to fund projects and programs included 
in the metropolitan transportation plan. In the case of new funding 
sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be 
identified. The financial plan may include an assessment of the 
appropriateness of innovative finance techniques (for example, tolling, 
pricing, bonding, public private partnerships, or other strategies) as 
revenue sources for projects in the plan.
    (iv) In developing the financial plan, the MPO shall take into 
account all projects and strategies proposed for funding under title 23 
U.S.C., title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 or with other Federal funds; State 
assistance; local sources; and private participation. Revenue and cost 
estimates that support the metropolitan transportation plan must use an 
inflation rate(s) to reflect ``year of expenditure dollars,'' based on 
reasonable financial principles and information, developed 
cooperatively by the MPO, State(s), and public transportation 
operator(s).
    (v) For the outer years of the metropolitan transportation plan 
(i.e., beyond the first 10 years), the financial plan may reflect 
aggregate cost ranges/cost bands, as long as the future funding 
source(s) is reasonably expected to be available to support the 
projected cost ranges/cost bands.
    (vi) For nonattainment and maintenance areas, the financial plan 
shall address the specific financial strategies required to ensure the 
implementation of TCMs in the applicable SIP.
    (vii) For illustrative purposes, the financial plan may include 
additional projects that would be included in the adopted 
transportation plan if additional resources beyond those identified in 
the financial plan were to become available.
    (viii) In cases that the FHWA and the FTA find a metropolitan 
transportation plan to be fiscally constrained and a revenue source is 
subsequently removed or substantially reduced (i.e., by legislative or 
administrative actions), the FHWA and the FTA will not withdraw the 
original determination of fiscal constraint; however, in such cases, 
the FHWA and the FTA will not act on an updated or amended metropolitan 
transportation plan that does not reflect the changed revenue 
situation; and
    (12) Pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation facilities in 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g).
    (g) The MPO shall consult, as appropriate, with State and local 
agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, 
environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation 
concerning the development of the transportation plan. The consultation 
shall involve, as appropriate:
    (1) Comparison of transportation plans with State conservation 
plans or maps, if available; or
    (2) Comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or 
historic resources, if available.
    (h) The metropolitan transportation plan should integrate the 
priorities, goals, countermeasures, strategies, or projects for the 
metropolitan planning area contained in the HSIP, including the SHSP 
required under 23 U.S.C. 148, the Public Transportation Agency Safety 
Plan required under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), or an Interim Agency Safety Plan 
in accordance with 49 CFR part 659, as in effect until completion of 
the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and may incorporate or 
reference applicable emergency relief and disaster preparedness plans 
and strategies and policies that support homeland security, as 
appropriate, to safeguard the personal security of all motorized and 
non-motorized users.
    (i) An MPO may, while fitting the needs and complexity of its 
community, voluntarily elect to develop multiple scenarios for 
consideration as part of the development of the metropolitan 
transportation plan.
    (1) An MPO that chooses to develop multiple scenarios under this 
paragraph (i) is encouraged to consider:
    (i) Potential regional investment strategies for the planning 
horizon;
    (ii) Assumed distribution of population and employment;
    (iii) A scenario that, to the maximum extent practicable, maintains 
baseline conditions for the performance areas identified in Sec.  
450.306(d) and measures established under 23 CFR part 490;
    (iv) A scenario that improves the baseline conditions for as many 
of the performance measures identified in Sec.  450.306(d) as possible;
    (v) Revenue constrained scenarios based on the total revenues 
expected to be available over the forecast period of the plan; and
    (vi) Estimated costs and potential revenues available to support 
each scenario.

[[Page 31832]]

    (2) In addition to the performance areas identified in section 23 
U.S.C. 150(c), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c), and 5329(d), and the measures 
established under 23 CFR part 490, MPOs may evaluate scenarios 
developed under this paragraph using locally developed measures.
    (j) The MPO shall provide individuals, affected public agencies, 
representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, 
providers of freight transportation services, private providers of 
transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, 
representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle 
transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other 
interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 
transportation plan using the participation plan developed under Sec.  
450.316(a).
    (k) The MPO shall publish or otherwise make readily available the 
metropolitan transportation plan for public review, including (to the 
maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible formats and 
means, such as the World Wide Web.
    (l) A State or MPO is not required to select any project from the 
illustrative list of additional projects included in the financial plan 
under paragraph (f)(11) of this section.
    (m) In nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-
related pollutants, the MPO, as well as the FHWA and the FTA, must make 
a conformity determination on any updated or amended transportation 
plan in accordance with the Clean Air Act and the EPA transportation 
conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). A 12-month 
conformity lapse grace period will be implemented when an area misses 
an applicable deadline, in accordance with the Clean Air Act and the 
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). At 
the end of this 12-month grace period, the existing conformity 
determination will lapse. During a conformity lapse, MPOs can prepare 
an interim metropolitan transportation plan as a basis for advancing 
projects that are eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse. An 
interim metropolitan transportation plan consisting of eligible 
projects from, or consistent with, the most recent conforming 
transportation plan and TIP may proceed immediately without revisiting 
the requirements of this section, subject to interagency consultation 
defined in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. An interim metropolitan 
transportation plan containing eligible projects that are not from, or 
consistent with, the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP 
must meet all the requirements of this section.


Sec.  450.326  Development and content of the transportation 
improvement program (TIP).

    (a) The MPO, in cooperation with the State(s) and any affected 
public transportation operator(s), shall develop a TIP for the 
metropolitan planning area. The TIP shall reflect the investment 
priorities established in the current metropolitan transportation plan 
and shall cover a period of no less than 4 years, be updated at least 
every 4 years, and be approved by the MPO and the Governor. However, if 
the TIP covers more than 4 years, the FHWA and the FTA will consider 
the projects in the additional years as informational. The MPO may 
update the TIP more frequently, but the cycle for updating the TIP must 
be compatible with the STIP development and approval process. The TIP 
expires when the FHWA/FTA approval of the STIP expires. Copies of any 
updated or revised TIPs must be provided to the FHWA and the FTA. In 
nonattainment and maintenance areas subject to transportation 
conformity requirements, the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the MPO, must 
make a conformity determination on any updated or amended TIP, in 
accordance with the Clean Air Act requirements and the EPA's 
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A).
    (b) The MPO shall provide all interested parties with a reasonable 
opportunity to comment on the proposed TIP as required by Sec.  
450.316(a). In addition, in nonattainment area TMAs, the MPO shall 
provide at least one formal public meeting during the TIP development 
process, which should be addressed through the participation plan 
described in Sec.  450.316(a). In addition, the MPO shall publish or 
otherwise make readily available the TIP for public review, including 
(to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible 
formats and means, such as the World Wide Web, as described in Sec.  
450.316(a).
    (c) The TIP shall be designed such that once implemented, it makes 
progress toward achieving the performance targets established under 
Sec.  450.306(d).
    (d) The TIP shall include, to the maximum extent practicable, a 
description of the anticipated effect of the TIP toward achieving the 
performance targets identified in the metropolitan transportation plan, 
linking investment priorities to those performance targets. This 
discussion should be consistent with the strategies to achieve targets 
presented in the metropolitan transportation plan and other performance 
management plans such as the highway and transit asset management 
plans, the SHSP, the public transportation agency safety plan, the CMAQ 
performance plan, and if one exists, the State freight plan.
    (e) The TIP shall include capital and non-capital surface 
transportation projects (or phases of projects) within the boundaries 
of the metropolitan planning area proposed for funding under 23 U.S.C. 
and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 (including transportation alternatives; 
associated transit improvements; Tribal Transportation Program, Federal 
Lands Transportation Program, and Federal Lands Access Program 
projects; HSIP projects; trails projects; accessible pedestrian 
walkways; and bicycle facilities), except the following that may be 
included:
    (1) Safety projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 49 U.S.C. 31102;
    (2) Metropolitan planning projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(d), 
and 49 U.S.C. 5305(d);
    (3) State planning and research projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 505 
and 49 U.S.C. 5305(e);
    (4) At the discretion of the State and MPO, metropolitan planning 
projects funded with Surface Transportation Program funds;
    (5) Emergency relief projects (except those involving substantial 
functional, locational, or capacity changes);
    (6) National planning and research projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 
5314; and
    (7) Project management oversight projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 
5327.
    (f) The TIP shall contain all regionally significant projects 
requiring an action by the FHWA or the FTA whether or not the projects 
are to be funded under title 23 U.S.C. Chapters 1 and 2 or title 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 53 (e.g., addition of an interchange to the Interstate 
System with State, local, and/or private funds and congressionally 
designated projects not funded under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 
53). For public information and conformity purposes, the TIP shall 
include all regionally significant projects proposed to be funded with 
Federal funds other than those administered by the FHWA or the FTA, as 
well as all regionally significant projects to be funded with non-
Federal funds.
    (g) The TIP shall include, for each project or phase (e.g., 
preliminary engineering, environment/NEPA, right-of-way, design, or 
construction), the following:

[[Page 31833]]

    (1) Sufficient descriptive material (i.e., type of work, termini, 
and length) to identify the project or phase;
    (2) Estimated total project cost, which may extend beyond the 4 
years of the TIP;
    (3) The amount of Federal funds proposed to be obligated during 
each program year for the project or phase (for the first year, this 
includes the proposed category of Federal funds and source(s) of non-
Federal funds. For the second, third, and fourth years, this includes 
the likely category or possible categories of Federal funds and sources 
of non-Federal funds);
    (4) Identification of the agencies responsible for carrying out the 
project or phase;
    (5) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, identification of those 
projects that are identified as TCMs in the applicable SIP;
    (6) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, included projects shall 
be specified in sufficient detail (design concept and scope) for air 
quality analysis in accordance with the EPA transportation conformity 
regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A); and
    (7) In areas with Americans with Disabilities Act required 
paratransit and key station plans, identification of those projects 
that will implement these plans.
    (h) 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 771.117(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part 93. 
In nonattainment and maintenance areas, project classifications must be 
consistent with the ``exempt project'' classifications contained in the 
EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). 
In addition, projects proposed for funding under title 23 U.S.C. 
Chapter 2 that are not regionally significant may be grouped in one 
line item or identified individually in the TIP.
    (i) Each project or project phase included in the TIP shall be 
consistent with the approved metropolitan transportation plan.
    (j) The TIP shall include a financial plan that demonstrates how 
the approved TIP can be implemented, indicates resources from public 
and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available 
to carry out the TIP, and recommends any additional financing 
strategies for needed projects and programs. In developing the TIP, the 
MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s) shall 
cooperatively develop estimates of funds that are reasonably expected 
to be available to support TIP implementation in accordance with Sec.  
450.314(a). Only projects for which construction or operating funds can 
reasonably be expected to be available may be included. In the case of 
new funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall 
be identified. In developing the financial plan, the MPO shall take 
into account all projects and strategies funded under title 23 U.S.C., 
title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and other Federal funds; and regionally 
significant projects that are not federally funded. For purposes of 
transportation operations and maintenance, the financial plan shall 
contain system-level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are 
reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain 
Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(6)) and public 
transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). In addition, 
for illustrative purposes, the financial plan may include additional 
projects that would be included in the TIP if reasonable additional 
resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were to become 
available. Revenue and cost estimates for the TIP must use an inflation 
rate(s) to reflect ``year of expenditure dollars,'' based on reasonable 
financial principles and information, developed cooperatively by the 
MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s).
    (k) The TIP shall include a project, or a 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. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included in 
the first 2 years of the TIP shall be limited to those for which funds 
are available or committed. For the TIP, financial constraint shall be 
demonstrated and maintained by year and shall include sufficient 
financial information to demonstrate which projects are to be 
implemented using current and/or reasonably available revenues, while 
federally supported facilities are being adequately operated and 
maintained. In the case of proposed funding sources, strategies for 
ensuring their availability shall be identified in the financial plan 
consistent with paragraph (h) of this section. In nonattainment and 
maintenance areas, the TIP shall give priority to eligible TCMs 
identified in the approved SIP in accordance with the EPA 
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) and 
shall provide for their timely implementation.
    (l) In cases that the FHWA and the FTA find a TIP to be fiscally 
constrained and a revenue source is subsequently removed or 
substantially reduced (i.e., by legislative or administrative actions), 
the FHWA and the FTA will not withdraw the original determination of 
fiscal constraint. However, in such cases, the FHWA and the FTA will 
not act on an updated or amended TIP that does not reflect the changed 
revenue situation.
    (m) The metropolitan TIP should be informed by the financial plan 
and investment strategies from the State asset management plan for the 
NHS (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)) and by the public transit asset 
management plan(s) (as discussed in 49 U.S.C. 5326).
    (n) Procedures or agreements that distribute suballocated Surface 
Transportation Program funds or funds under 49 U.S.C. 5307 to 
individual jurisdictions or modes within the MPA by pre-determined 
percentages or formulas are inconsistent with the legislative 
provisions that require the MPO, in cooperation with the State and the 
public transportation operator, 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 metropolitan transportation planning process.
    (o) As a management tool for monitoring progress in implementing 
the transportation plan, the TIP should:
    (1) Identify the criteria and process for prioritizing 
implementation of transportation plan elements (including multimodal 
trade-offs) for inclusion in 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; and
    (3) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, describe the progress 
in implementing any required TCMs, in accordance with 40 CFR part 93.
    (p) In metropolitan nonattainment and maintenance areas, a 12-month 
conformity lapse grace period will be implemented when an area misses 
an applicable deadline, according to the Clean Air Act and the 
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). At 
the end of this 12-month grace period, the existing conformity 
determination will lapse. During a conformity lapse, MPOs may prepare 
an interim TIP as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to 
proceed under a conformity lapse. An interim TIP consisting of eligible 
projects from, or consistent with, the most recent

[[Page 31834]]

conforming metropolitan transportation plan and TIP may proceed 
immediately without revisiting the requirements of this section, 
subject to interagency consultation defined in 40 CFR part 93. An 
interim TIP containing eligible projects that are not from, or 
consistent with, the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP 
must meet all the requirements of this section.
    (q) Projects in any of the first 4 years of the TIP may be advanced 
in place of another project in the first 4 years of the TIP, subject to 
the project selection requirements of Sec.  450.332. In addition, the 
MPO may revise the TIP at any time under procedures agreed to by the 
State, MPO(s), and public transportation operator(s) consistent with 
the TIP development procedures established in this section, as well as 
the procedures for the MPO participation plan (see Sec.  450.316(a)) 
and FHWA/FTA actions on the TIP (see Sec.  450.330).


Sec.  450.328  TIP revisions and relationship to the STIP.

    (a) An MPO may revise the TIP 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 a TIP amendment involves non-exempt projects (per 40 CFR 
part 93), or is replaced with an updated TIP, the MPO and the FHWA and 
the FTA must make a new conformity determination. In all areas, changes 
that affect fiscal constraint must take place by amendment of the TIP. 
The MPO shall use public participation procedures consistent with Sec.  
450.316(a) in revising the TIP, except that these procedures are not 
required for administrative modifications.
    (b) After approval by the MPO and the Governor, the State shall 
include the TIP without change, directly or by reference, in the STIP 
required under 23 U.S.C. 135. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, 
the FHWA and the FTA must make a conformity finding on the TIP before 
it is included in the STIP. A copy of the approved TIP shall be 
provided to the FHWA and the FTA.
    (c) The State shall notify the MPO and Federal land management 
agencies when it has included a TIP including projects under the 
jurisdiction of these agencies in the STIP.


Sec.  450.330  TIP action by the FHWA and the FTA.

    (a) The FHWA and the FTA shall jointly find that each metropolitan 
TIP is consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan produced by 
the continuing and comprehensive transportation process carried on 
cooperatively by the MPO(s), the State(s), and the public 
transportation operator(s) in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 
U.S.C. 5303. This finding shall be based on the self-certification 
statement submitted by the State and MPO under Sec.  450.336, a review 
of the metropolitan transportation plan by the FHWA and the FTA, and 
upon other reviews as deemed necessary by the FHWA and the FTA.
    (b) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the MPO, as well as the 
FHWA and the FTA, shall determine conformity of any updated or amended 
TIP, in accordance with 40 CFR part 93. After the FHWA and the FTA 
issue a conformity determination on the TIP, the TIP shall be 
incorporated, without change, into the STIP, directly or by reference.
    (c) If an MPO has not updated the metropolitan transportation plan 
in accordance with the cycles defined in Sec.  450.324(c), projects may 
only be advanced from a TIP that was approved and found to conform (in 
nonattainment and maintenance areas) prior to expiration of the 
metropolitan transportation plan and meets the TIP update requirements 
of Sec.  450.326(a). Until the MPO approves (in attainment areas) or 
the FHWA and the FTA issue a conformity determination on (in 
nonattainment and maintenance areas) the updated metropolitan 
transportation plan, the MPO may not amend the TIP.
    (d) 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 TIP in accordance with 
Sec.  450.220(b).
    (e) 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 financially constrained and conforming 
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP.
    (f) Where necessary in order to maintain or establish operations, 
the FHWA and the FTA may approve highway and transit operating 
assistance for specific projects or programs, even though the projects 
or programs may not be included in an approved TIP.


Sec.  450.332  Project selection from the TIP.

    (a) Once a TIP that meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134(j), 49 
U.S.C. 5303(j), and Sec.  450.326 has been developed and approved, the 
first year of the TIP will 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 or where there are significant shifting of projects between 
years. In this case, the MPO, the State, and the public transportation 
operator(s) if requested by the MPO, the State, or the public 
transportation operator(s) shall jointly develop a revised ``agreed 
to'' list of projects. If the State or public transportation 
operator(s) wishes to proceed with a project in the second, third, or 
fourth 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 public transportation operator(s) jointly 
develop expedited project selection procedures to provide for the 
advancement of projects from the second, third, or fourth years of the 
TIP.
    (b) In metropolitan areas not designated as TMAs, the State and/or 
the public transportation operator(s), in cooperation with the MPO 
shall select projects to be implemented using title 23 U.S.C. funds 
(other than Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands Transportation 
Program, and Federal Lands Access Program projects) or funds under 
title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, from the approved metropolitan TIP. Tribal 
Transportation Program, Federal Lands Transportation Program, and 
Federal Lands Access Program projects shall be selected in accordance 
with procedures developed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, and 204.
    (c) In areas designated as TMAs, the MPO shall select all 23 U.S.C. 
and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 funded projects (excluding projects on the NHS 
and Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands Transportation 
Program, and Federal Lands Access Program) in consultation with the 
State and public transportation operator(s) from the approved TIP and 
in accordance with the priorities in the approved TIP. The State shall 
select projects on the NHS in cooperation with the MPO, from the 
approved TIP. Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands 
Transportation Program, and Federal Lands Access Program projects shall 
be selected in accordance with procedures developed pursuant to 23 
U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, and 204.
    (d) Except as provided in Sec.  450.326(e) and Sec.  450.330(f), 
projects not included in the federally approved STIP are not eligible 
for funding with funds under title 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
    (e) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, priority shall be given 
to the timely implementation of TCMs

[[Page 31835]]

contained in the applicable SIP in accordance with the EPA 
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A).


Sec.  450.334  Annual listing of obligated projects.

    (a) In metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later 
than 90 calendar days following the end of the program year, the State, 
public transportation operator(s), and the MPO shall cooperatively 
develop a listing of projects (including investments in pedestrian 
walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) for which funds under 
23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding 
program year.
    (b) The listing shall be prepared in accordance with Sec.  
450.314(a) and shall include all federally funded projects authorized 
or revised to increase obligations in the preceding program year, and 
shall at a minimum include the TIP information under Sec.  
450.326(g)(1) and (4) and identify, for each project, the amount of 
Federal funds requested in the TIP, the Federal funding that was 
obligated during the preceding year, and the Federal funding remaining 
and available for subsequent years.
    (c) The listing shall be published or otherwise made available in 
accordance with the MPO's public participation criteria for the TIP.


Sec.  450.336  Self-certifications and Federal certifications.

    (a) For all MPAs, concurrent with the submittal of the entire 
proposed TIP to the FHWA and the FTA as part of the STIP approval, the 
State and the MPO shall certify at least every 4 years that the 
metropolitan transportation planning process is being carried out in 
accordance with all applicable requirements including:
    (1) 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and this subpart;
    (2) In 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 40 CFR part 93;
    (3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
2000d-1) and 49 CFR part 21;
    (4) 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age in employment or 
business opportunity;
    (5) Section 1101(b) of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) and 49 CFR part 26 
regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in DOT 
funded projects;
    (6) 23 CFR part 230, regarding the implementation of an equal 
employment opportunity program on Federal and Federal-aid highway 
construction contracts;
    (7) The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
(42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38;
    (8) The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), 
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance;
    (9) Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C. regarding the prohibition of 
discrimination based on gender; and
    (10) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) 
and 49 CFR part 27 regarding discrimination against individuals with 
disabilities.
    (b) In TMAs, the FHWA and the FTA jointly shall review and evaluate 
the transportation planning process for each TMA no less than once 
every 4 years to determine if the process meets the requirements of 
applicable provisions of Federal law and this subpart.
    (1) After review and evaluation of the TMA planning process, the 
FHWA and FTA shall take one of the following actions:
    (i) If the process meets the requirements of this part and the MPO 
and the Governor have approved a TIP, jointly certify the 
transportation planning process;
    (ii) If the process substantially meets the requirements of this 
part and the MPO and the Governor have approved a TIP, jointly certify 
the transportation planning process subject to certain specified 
corrective actions being taken; or
    (iii) If 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 FHWA and the FTA 
jointly determine, subject to certain specified corrective actions 
being taken.
    (2) If, upon the review and evaluation conducted under paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii) of this section, the FHWA and the FTA do not certify the 
transportation planning process in a TMA, the Secretary may withhold up 
to 20 percent of the funds attributable to the metropolitan planning 
area of the MPO for projects funded under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 53 in addition to corrective actions and funding 
restrictions. The withheld funds shall be restored to the MPA when the 
metropolitan transportation planning process is certified by the FHWA 
and FTA, unless the funds have lapsed.
    (3) A certification of the TMA planning process will remain in 
effect for 4 years unless a new certification determination is made 
sooner by the FHWA and the FTA or a shorter term is specified in the 
certification report.
    (4) In conducting a certification review, the FHWA and the FTA 
shall provide opportunities for public involvement within the 
metropolitan planning area under review. The FHWA and the FTA shall 
consider the public input received in arriving at a decision on a 
certification action.
    (5) The FHWA and the FTA shall notify the MPO(s), the State(s), and 
public transportation operator(s) of the actions taken under paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section. The FHWA and the FTA will update the 
certification status of the TMA when evidence of satisfactory 
completion of a corrective action(s) is provided to the FHWA and the 
FTA.


Sec.  450.338  Applicability of NEPA to metropolitan transportation 
plans and programs.

    Any decision by the Secretary concerning a metropolitan 
transportation plan or TIP developed through the processes provided for 
in 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and this subpart shall not be 
considered to be a Federal action subject to review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).


Sec.  450.340  Phase-in of new requirements.

    (a) Prior [2 years after the publication date of the final rule], 
an MPO may adopt a metropolitan transportation plan that has been 
developed using the SAFETEA-LU requirements or the provisions and 
requirements of this part. On or after [2 years after the publication 
date of the final rule], an MPO may not adopt a metropolitan 
transportation plan that has not been developed according to the 
provisions and requirements of this part.
    (b) Prior [2 years after the publication date of the final rule], 
FHWA/FTA may determine the conformity of, or approve as part of a STIP, 
a TIP that has been developed using SAFETEA-LU requirements or the 
provisions and requirements of this part. On or after [2 years after 
the publication date of the final rule], FHWA/FTA may only determine 
the conformity of, or approve as part of a STIP, a TIP that has been 
developed according to the provisions and requirements of this part, 
regardless of when the MPO developed the TIP.
    (c) On and after [2 years after the publication date of the final 
rule], the FHWA and the FTA will take action (i.e., conformity 
determinations and STIP approvals) on an updated or amended TIP 
developed under the provisions of this part, even if the MPO

[[Page 31836]]

has not yet adopted a new metropolitan transportation plan under the 
provisions of this part, as long as the underlying transportation 
planning process is consistent with the requirements in the MAP-21.
    (d) On or after [2 years after the publication date of the final 
rule], an MPO may make an administrative modification to a TIP that 
conforms to either the SAFETEA-LU or to the provisions and requirements 
of this part.
    (e) Two years from the effective date of each rule establishing 
performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), 49 U.S.C. 5326, and 49 
U.S.C. 5329 FHWA/FTA will only determine the conformity of, or approve 
as part of a STIP, a TIP that is based on a metropolitan transportation 
planning process that meets the performance-based planning requirements 
in this part and in such a rule.
    (f) Prior to 2 years from the effective date of each rule 
establishing performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), 49 U.S.C. 
5326, or 49 U.S.C. 5329, an MPO may adopt a metropolitan transportation 
plan that has been developed using the SAFETEA-LU requirements or the 
performance-based planning requirements of this part and in such a 
rule. Two years on or after the effective date of each rule 
establishing performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), 49 U.S.C. 
5326, or 49 U.S.C. 5329, an MPO may only adopt a metropolitan 
transportation plan that has been developed according to the 
performance-based provisions and requirements of this part and in such 
a rule.
    (g) A newly designated TMA shall implement the congestion 
management process described in Sec.  450.322 within 18 months of 
designation.

Appendix A to Part 450--Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA 
Processes

Background and Overview

    This Appendix provides additional information to explain the 
linkage between the transportation planning and project development/
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes. It is intended 
to be non-binding and should not be construed as a rule of general 
applicability.
    For 40 years, the Congress has directed that federally-funded 
highway and transit projects must flow from metropolitan and 
statewide transportation planning processes (pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 
134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306). Over the years, the Congress has 
refined and strengthened the transportation planning process as the 
foundation for project decisions, emphasizing public involvement, 
consideration of environmental and other factors, and a Federal role 
that oversees the transportation planning process but does not 
second-guess the content of transportation plans and programs.
    Despite this statutory emphasis on transportation planning, the 
environmental analyses produced to meet the requirements of the NEPA 
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) have often been conducted de novo, 
disconnected from the analyses used to develop long-range 
transportation plans, statewide and metropolitan Transportation 
Improvement Programs (STIPs/TIPs), or planning-level corridor/
subarea/feasibility studies. When the NEPA and transportation 
planning processes are not well coordinated, the NEPA process may 
lead to the development of information that is more appropriately 
developed in the planning process, resulting in duplication of work 
and delays in transportation improvements.
    The purpose of this Appendix is to change this culture, by 
supporting congressional intent that statewide and metropolitan 
transportation planning should be the foundation for highway and 
transit project decisions. This Appendix was crafted to recognize 
that transportation planning processes vary across the country. This 
document provides details on how information, analysis, and products 
from transportation planning can be incorporated into and relied 
upon in NEPA documents under existing laws, regardless of when the 
Notice of Intent has been published. This Appendix presents 
environmental review as a continuum of sequential study, refinement, 
and expansion performed in transportation planning and during 
project development/NEPA, with information developed and conclusions 
drawn in early stages utilized in subsequent (and more detailed) 
review stages.
    The information below is intended for use by State departments 
of transportation (State DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations 
(MPOs), and public transportation operators to clarify the 
circumstances under which transportation planning level choices and 
analyses can be adopted or incorporated into the process required by 
NEPA. Additionally, the FHWA and the FTA will work with Federal 
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies to incorporate the 
principles of this Appendix in their day-to-day NEPA policies and 
procedures related to their involvement in highway and transit 
projects.
    This Appendix does not extend NEPA requirements to 
transportation plans and programs. The Transportation Efficiency Act 
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 
specifically exempted transportation plans and programs from NEPA 
review. Therefore, initiating the NEPA process as part of, or 
concurrently with, a transportation planning study does not subject 
transportation plans and programs to NEPA.
    Implementation of this Appendix by States, MPOs, and public 
transportation operators is voluntary. The degree to which studies, 
analyses, or conclusions from the transportation planning process 
can be incorporated into the project development/NEPA processes will 
depend upon how well they meet certain standards established by NEPA 
regulations and guidance. While some transportation planning 
processes already meet these standards, others will need some 
modification.
    The remainder of this Appendix document utilizes a ``Question 
and Answer'' format, organized into three primary categories 
(``Procedural Issues,'' ``Substantive Issues,'' and ``Administrative 
Issues'').

I. Procedural Issues

1. In what format should the transportation planning information be 
included?

    To be included in the NEPA process, work from the transportation 
planning process must be documented in a form that can be appended 
to the NEPA document or incorporated by reference. Documents may be 
incorporated by reference if they are readily available so as to not 
impede agency or public review of the action. Any document 
incorporated by reference must be ``reasonably available for 
inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed 
for comment.'' Incorporated materials must be cited in the NEPA 
document and their contents briefly described, so that the reader 
understands why the document is cited and knows where to look for 
further information. To the extent possible, the documentation 
should be in a form such as official actions by the MPO, State DOT, 
or public transportation operator and/or correspondence within and 
among the organizations involved in the transportation planning 
process.

2. What is a reasonable level of detail for a planning product that 
is intended to be used in a NEPA document? How does this level of 
detail compare to what is considered a full NEPA analysis?

    For purposes of transportation planning alone, a planning-level 
analysis does not need to rise to the level of detail required in 
the NEPA process. Rather, it needs to be accurate and up-to-date, 
and should adequately support recommended improvements in the 
statewide or metropolitan long-range transportation plan. The 
SAFETEA-LU requires transportation planning processes to focus on 
setting a context and following acceptable procedures. For example, 
the SAFETEA-LU requires a ``discussion of the types of potential 
environmental mitigation activities'' and potential areas for their 
implementation, rather than details on specific strategies. The 
SAFETEA-LU also emphasizes consultation with Federal, State, and 
Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies.
    However, the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) ultimately will be judged by the standards 
applicable under the NEPA regulations and guidance from the Council 
on Environmental Quality (CEQ). To the extent the information 
incorporated from the transportation planning process, standing 
alone, does not contain all of the information or analysis required 
by NEPA, then it will need to be supplemented by other information 
contained in the EIS or EA that

[[Page 31837]]

would, in conjunction with the information from the plan, 
collectively meet the requirements of NEPA. The intent is not to 
require NEPA studies in the transportation planning process. As an 
option, the NEPA analyses prepared for project development can be 
integrated with transportation planning studies (see the response to 
Question 9 for additional information).

3. What type and extent of involvement from Federal, Tribal, State, 
and local environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies is 
needed in the transportation planning process in order for 
planning-level decisions to be more readily accepted in the NEPA 
process?

    Sections 3005, 3006, and 6001 of the SAFETEA-LU established 
formal consultation requirements for MPOs and State DOTs to employ 
with environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies in the 
development of long-range transportation plans. For example, 
metropolitan transportation plans now ``shall include a discussion 
of the types of potential environmental mitigation activities and 
potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities 
that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the 
environmental functions affected by the [transportation] plan,'' and 
that these planning-level discussions ``shall be developed in 
consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land management, 
wildlife, and regulatory agencies.'' In addition, MPOs ``shall 
consult, as appropriate, with State and local agencies responsible 
for land use management, natural resources, environmental 
protection, conservation, and historic preservation concerning the 
development of a long-range transportation plan,'' and that this 
consultation ``shall involve, as appropriate, comparison of 
transportation plans with State conservation plans or maps, if 
available, or comparison of transportation plans to inventories of 
natural or historic resources, if available.'' Similar SAFETEA-LU 
language addresses the development of the long-range statewide 
transportation plan, with the addition of Tribal conservation plans 
or maps to this planning-level ``comparison.''
    In addition, section 6002 of the SAFETEA-LU established several 
mechanisms for increased efficiency in environmental reviews for 
project decisionmaking. For example, the term ``lead agency'' 
collectively means the U.S. Department of Transportation and a State 
or local governmental entity serving as a joint lead agency for the 
NEPA process. In addition, the lead agency is responsible for 
inviting and designating ``participating agencies'' (i.e., other 
Federal or non-Federal agencies that may have an interest in the 
proposed project). Any Federal agency that is invited by the lead 
agency to participate in the environmental review process for a 
project shall be designated as a participating agency by the lead 
agency unless the invited agency informs the lead agency, in 
writing, by the deadline specified in the invitation that the 
invited agency:
    (a) Has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 
project; (b) has no expertise or information relevant to the 
project; and (c) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
    Past successful examples of using transportation planning 
products in NEPA analysis are based on early and continuous 
involvement of environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies. 
Without this early coordination, environmental, regulatory, and 
resource agencies are more likely to expect decisions made or 
analyses conducted in the transportation planning process to be 
revisited during the NEPA process. Early participation in 
transportation planning provides environmental, regulatory, and 
resource agencies better insight into the needs and objectives of 
the locality. Additionally, early participation provides an 
important opportunity for environmental, regulatory, and resource 
agency concerns to be identified and addressed early in the process, 
such as those related to permit applications. Moreover, Federal, 
Tribal, State, and local environmental, regulatory, and resource 
agencies are able to share data on particular resources, which can 
play a critical role in determining the feasibility of a 
transportation solution with respect to environmental impacts. The 
use of other agency planning outputs can result in a transportation 
project that could support multiple goals (transportation, 
environmental, and community). Further, planning decisions by these 
other agencies may have impacts on long-range transportation plans 
and/or the STIP/TIP, thereby providing important input to the 
transportation planning process and advancing integrated 
decisionmaking.

4. What is the procedure for using decisions or analyses from the 
transportation planning process?

    The lead agencies jointly decide, and must agree, on what 
processes and consultation techniques are used to determine the 
transportation planning products that will be incorporated into the 
NEPA process. At a minimum, a robust scoping/early coordination 
process (which explains to Federal and State environmental, 
regulatory, and resource agencies and the public the information 
and/or analyses utilized to develop the planning products, how the 
purpose and need was developed and refined, and how the design 
concept and scope were determined) should play a critical role in 
leading to informed decisions by the lead agencies on the 
suitability of the transportation planning information, analyses, 
documents, and decisions for use in the NEPA process. As part of a 
rigorous scoping/early coordination process, the FHWA and the FTA 
should ensure that the transportation planning results are 
appropriately documented, shared, and used.

5. To what extent can the FHWA/FTA provide up-front assurance that 
decisions and additional investments made in the transportation 
planning process will allow planning-level decisions and analyses 
to be used in the NEPA process?

    There are no guarantees. However, the potential is greatly 
improved for transportation planning processes that address the ``3-
C'' planning principles (comprehensive, cooperative, and 
continuous); incorporate the intent of NEPA through the 
consideration of natural, physical, and social effects; involve 
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies; thoroughly 
document the transportation planning process information, analysis, 
and decision; and vet the planning results through the applicable 
public involvement processes.

6. What considerations will the FHWA/FTA take into account in their 
review of transportation planning products for acceptance in 
project development/NEPA?

    The FHWA and the FTA will give deference to decisions resulting 
from the transportation planning process if the FHWA and FTA 
determine that the planning process is consistent with the ``3-C'' 
planning principles and when the planning study process, 
alternatives considered, and resulting decisions have a rational 
basis that is thoroughly documented and vetted through the 
applicable public involvement processes. Moreover, any applicable 
program-specific requirements (e.g., those of the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program or the FTA's Capital 
Investment Grant program) also must be met.
    The NEPA requires that the FHWA and the FTA be able to stand 
behind the overall soundness and credibility of analyses conducted 
and decisions made during the transportation planning process if 
they are incorporated into a NEPA document. For example, if systems-
level or other broad objectives or choices from the transportation 
plan are incorporated into the purpose and need statement for a NEPA 
document, the FHWA and the FTA should not revisit whether these are 
the best objectives or choices among other options. Rather, the FHWA 
and the FTA review would include making sure that objectives or 
choices derived from the transportation plan were: Based on 
transportation planning factors established by Federal law; reflect 
a credible and articulated planning rationale; founded on reliable 
data; and developed through transportation planning processes 
meeting FHWA and FTA statutory and regulatory requirements. In 
addition, the basis for the goals and choices must be documented and 
included in the NEPA document. The FHWA/FTA reviewers do not need to 
review whether assumptions or analytical methods used in the studies 
are the best available, but, instead, need to assure that such 
assumptions or analytical methods are reasonable, scientifically 
acceptable, and consistent with goals, objectives, and policies set 
forth in long-range transportation plans. This review would include 
determining whether: (a) Assumptions have a rational basis and are 
up-to-date and (b) data, analytical methods, and modeling techniques 
are reliable, defensible, reasonably current, and meet data quality 
requirements.

[[Page 31838]]

II. Substantive Issues

General Issues To Be Considered

7. What should be considered in order to rely upon transportation 
planning studies in NEPA?

    The following questions should be answered prior to accepting 
studies conducted during the transportation planning process for use 
in NEPA. While not a ``checklist,'' these questions are intended to 
guide the practitioner's analysis of the planning products:
     How much time has passed since the planning studies and 
corresponding decisions were made?
     Were the future year policy assumptions used in the 
transportation planning process related to land use, economic 
development, transportation costs, and network expansion consistent 
with those to be used in the NEPA process?
     Is the information still relevant/valid?
     What changes have occurred in the area since the study 
was completed?
     Is the information in a format that can be appended to 
an environmental document or reformatted to do so?
     Are the analyses in a planning-level report or document 
based on data, analytical methods, and modeling techniques that are 
reliable, defensible, and consistent with those used in other 
regional transportation studies and project development activities?
     Were the FHWA and FTA, other agencies, and the public 
involved in the relevant planning analysis and the corresponding 
planning decisions?
     Were the planning products available to other agencies 
and the public during NEPA scoping?
     During NEPA scoping, was a clear connection between the 
decisions made in planning and those to be made during the project 
development stage explained to the public and others? What was the 
response?
     Are natural resource and land use plans being informed 
by transportation planning products, and vice versa?

Purpose and Need

8. How can transportation planning be used to shape a project's 
purpose and need in the NEPA process?

    A sound transportation planning process is the primary source of 
the project purpose and need. Through transportation planning, State 
and local governments, with involvement of stakeholders and the 
public, establish a vision for the region's future transportation 
system, define transportation goals and objectives for realizing 
that vision, decide which needs to address, and determine the 
timeframe for addressing these issues. The transportation planning 
process also provides a potential forum to define a project's 
purpose and need by framing the scope of the problem to be addressed 
by a proposed project. This scope may be further refined during the 
transportation planning process as more information about the 
transportation need is collected and consultation with the public 
and other stakeholders clarifies other issues and goals for the 
region.
    23 U.S.C. 139(f), as amended by the SAFETEA-LU Section 6002, 
provides additional focus regarding the definition of the purpose 
and need and objectives. For example, the lead agency, as early as 
practicable during the environmental review process, shall provide 
an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the 
public in defining the purpose and need for a project. The statement 
of purpose and need shall include a clear statement of the 
objectives that the proposed action is intended to achieve, which 
may include: (a) Achieving a transportation objective identified in 
an applicable statewide or metropolitan transportation plan; (b) 
supporting land use, economic development, or growth objectives 
established in applicable Federal, State, local, or Tribal plans; 
and (c) serving national defense, national security, or other 
national objectives, as established in Federal laws, plans, or 
policies.
    The transportation planning process can be utilized to develop 
the purpose and need in the following ways:
    (a) Goals and objectives from the transportation planning 
process may be part of the project's purpose and need statement;
    (b) A general travel corridor or general mode or modes (e.g., 
highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination) resulting from 
planning analyses may be part of the project's purpose and need 
statement;
    (c) If the financial plan for a metropolitan transportation plan 
indicates that funding for a specific project will require special 
funding sources (e.g., tolls or public-private financing), such 
information may be included in the purpose and need statement; or
    (d) The results of analyses from management systems (e.g., 
congestion, pavement, bridge, and/or safety) may shape the purpose 
and need statement.
    The use of these planning-level goals and choices must be 
appropriately explained during NEPA scoping and in the NEPA 
document.
    Consistent with NEPA, the purpose and need statement should be a 
statement of a transportation problem, not a specific solution. 
However, the purpose and need statement should be specific enough to 
generate alternatives that may potentially yield real solutions to 
the problem at-hand. A purpose and need statement that yields only 
one alternative may indicate a purpose and need that is too narrowly 
defined.
    Short of a fully integrated transportation decisionmaking 
process, many State DOTs develop information for their purpose and 
need statements when implementing interagency NEPA/Section 404 
process merger agreements. These agreements may need to be expanded 
to include commitments to share and utilize transportation planning 
products when developing a project's purpose and need.

9. Under what conditions can the NEPA process be initiated in 
conjunction with transportation planning studies?

    The NEPA process may be initiated in conjunction with 
transportation planning studies in a number of ways. A common method 
is the ``tiered EIS,'' in which the first-tier EIS evaluates general 
travel corridors, modes, and/or packages of projects at a planning 
level of detail, leading to the refinement of purpose and need and, 
ideally, selection of the design concept and scope for a project or 
series of projects. Subsequently, second-tier NEPA review(s) of the 
resulting projects would be performed in the usual way. The first-
tier EIS uses the NEPA process as a tool to involve environmental, 
regulatory, and resource agencies and the public in the planning 
decisions, as well as to ensure the appropriate consideration of 
environmental factors in these planning decisions.
    Corridor or subarea analyses/studies are another option when the 
long-range transportation plan leaves open the possibility of 
multiple approaches to fulfill its goals and objectives. In such 
cases, the formal NEPA process could be initiated through 
publication of a NOI in conjunction with a corridor or subarea 
planning study.

Alternatives

10. In the context of this Appendix, what is the meaning of the 
term ``alternatives''?

    This Appendix uses the term ``alternatives'' as specified in the 
NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14), where it is defined in its 
broadest sense to include everything from major modal alternatives 
and location alternatives to minor design changes that would 
mitigate adverse impacts. This Appendix does not use the term as it 
is used in many other contexts (e.g., ``prudent and feasible 
alternatives'' under Section 4(f) of the Department of 
Transportation Act or the ``Least Environmentally Damaging 
Practicable Alternative'' under the Clean Water Act.

11. Under what circumstances can alternatives be eliminated from 
detailed consideration during the NEPA process based on information 
and analysis from the transportation planning process?

    There are two ways in which the transportation planning process 
can begin limiting the alternative solutions to be evaluated during 
the NEPA process: (a) Shaping the purpose and need for the project; 
or (b) evaluating alternatives during planning studies and 
eliminating some of the alternatives from detailed study in the NEPA 
process prior to its start. Each approach requires careful 
attention, and is summarized below.
    (a) Shaping the Purpose and Need for the Project: The 
transportation planning process should shape the purpose and need 
and, thereby, the range of reasonable alternatives. With proper 
documentation and public involvement, a purpose and need derived 
from the planning process can legitimately narrow the alternatives 
analyzed in the NEPA process. See the response to Question 8 for 
further discussion on how the planning process can shape the purpose 
and need used in the NEPA process.
    For example, the purpose and need may be shaped by the 
transportation planning process in a manner that consequently 
narrows the range of alternatives that must be considered in detail 
in the NEPA document when:
    (1) The transportation planning process has selected a general 
travel corridor as best

[[Page 31839]]

addressing identified transportation problems and the rationale for 
the determination in the planning document is reflected in the 
purpose and need statement of the subsequent NEPA document;
    (2) The transportation planning process has selected a general 
mode (e.g., highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination) that 
accomplishes its goals and objectives, and these documented 
determinations are reflected in the purpose and need statement of 
the subsequent NEPA document; or
    (3) The transportation planning process determines that the 
project needs to be funded by tolls or other non-traditional funding 
sources in order for the long-range transportation plan to be 
fiscally constrained or identifies goals and objectives that can 
only be met by toll roads or other non-traditional funding sources, 
and that determination of those goals and objectives is reflected in 
the purpose and need statement of the subsequent NEPA document.
    (b) Evaluating and Eliminating Alternatives During the 
Transportation Planning Process: The evaluation and elimination of 
alternatives during the transportation planning process can be 
incorporated by reference into a NEPA document under certain 
circumstances. In these cases, the planning study becomes part of 
the NEPA process and provides a basis for screening out 
alternatives. As with any part of the NEPA process, the analysis of 
alternatives to be incorporated from the process must have a 
rational basis that has been thoroughly documented (including 
documentation of the necessary and appropriate vetting through the 
applicable public involvement processes). This record should be made 
available for public review during the NEPA scoping process.
    See responses to Questions 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this appendix for 
additional elements to consider with respect to acceptance of 
planning products for NEPA documentation and the response to 
Question 12 of this appendix on the information or analysis from the 
transportation planning process necessary for supporting the 
elimination of an alternative(s) from detailed consideration in the 
NEPA process.
    Development of planning Alternatives Analysis studies, required 
prior to MAP-21 for projects seeking funds through FTA's Capital 
Investment Grant program, are now optional, but may still be used to 
narrow the alternatives prior to the NEPA review, just as other 
planning studies may be used. In fact, through planning studies, FTA 
may be able to narrow the alternatives considered in detail in the 
NEPA document to the No-Build (No Action) alternative and the 
Locally Preferred Alternative. If the planning process has included 
the analysis and stakeholder involvement that would be undertaken in 
a first tier NEPA process, then the alternatives screening conducted 
in the transportation planning process may be incorporated by 
reference, described, and relied upon in the project-level NEPA 
document. At that point, the project-level NEPA analysis can focus 
on the remaining alternatives.

12. What information or analysis from the transportation planning 
process is needed in an EA or EIS to support the elimination of an 
alternative(s) from detailed consideration?

    The section of the EA or EIS that discusses alternatives 
considered but eliminated from detailed consideration should:
    (a) Identify any alternatives eliminated during the 
transportation planning process (this could include broad categories 
of alternatives, as when a long-range transportation plan selects a 
general travel corridor based on a corridor study, thereby 
eliminating all alternatives along other alignments);
    (b) Briefly summarize the reasons for eliminating the 
alternative; and
    (c) Include a summary of the analysis process that supports the 
elimination of alternatives (the summary should reference the 
relevant sections or pages of the analysis or study) and incorporate 
it by reference or append it to the NEPA document.
    Any analyses or studies used to eliminate alternatives from 
detailed consideration should be made available to the public and 
participating agencies during the NEPA scoping process and should be 
reasonably available during comment periods.
    Alternatives passed over during the transportation planning 
process because they are infeasible or do not meet the NEPA 
``purpose and need'' can be omitted from the detailed analysis of 
alternatives in the NEPA document, as long as the rationale for 
elimination is explained in the NEPA document. Alternatives that 
remain ``reasonable'' after the planning-level analysis must be 
addressed in the EIS, even when they are not the preferred 
alternative. When the proposed action evaluated in an EA involves 
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 
resources, NEPA requires that appropriate alternatives be studied, 
developed, and described.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

13. What types of planning products provide analysis of the 
affected environment and environmental consequences that are useful 
in a project-level NEPA analysis and document?

    The following planning products are valuable inputs to the 
discussion of the affected environment and environmental 
consequences (both its current state and future state in the absence 
of the proposed action) in the project-level NEPA analysis and 
document:
     Regional development and growth analyses;
     Local land use, growth management, or development 
plans; and
     Population and employment projections.
    The following are types of information, analysis, and other 
products from the transportation planning process that can be used 
in the discussion of the affected environment and environmental 
consequences in an EA or EIS:
    (a) Geographic information system (GIS) overlays showing the 
past, current, or predicted future conditions of the natural and 
built environments;
    (b) Environmental scans that identify environmental resources 
and environmentally sensitive areas;
    (c) Descriptions of airsheds and watersheds;
    (d) Demographic trends and forecasts;
    (e) Projections of future land use, natural resource 
conservation areas, and development; and
    (f) The outputs of natural resource planning efforts, such as 
wildlife conservation plans, watershed plans, special area 
management plans, and multiple species habitat conservation plans.
    However, in most cases, the assessment of the affected 
environment and environmental consequences conducted during the 
transportation planning process will not be detailed or current 
enough to meet NEPA standards and, thus, the inventory and 
evaluation of affected resources and the analysis of consequences of 
the alternatives will need to be supplemented with more refined 
analysis and possibly site-specific details during the NEPA process.

14. What information from the transportation planning process is 
useful in describing a baseline for the NEPA analysis of indirect 
and cumulative impacts?

    Because the nature of the transportation planning process is to 
look broadly at future land use, development, population increases, 
and other growth factors, the planning analysis can provide the 
basis for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts required 
under NEPA. The consideration in the transportation planning process 
of development, growth, and consistency with local land use, growth 
management, or development plans, as well as population and 
employment projections, provides an overview of the multitude of 
factors in an area that are creating pressures not only on the 
transportation system, but on the natural ecosystem and important 
environmental and community resources. An analysis of all reasonably 
foreseeable actions in the area also should be a part of the 
transportation planning process. This planning-level information 
should be captured and utilized in the analysis of indirect and 
cumulative impacts during the NEPA process.
    To be used in the analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts, 
such information should:
    (a) Be sufficiently detailed that differences in consequences of 
alternatives can be readily identified;
    (b) Be based on current data (e.g., data from the most recent 
Census) or be updated by additional information;
    (c) Be based on reasonable assumptions that are clearly stated; 
and/or
    (d) Rely on analytical methods and modeling techniques that are 
reliable, defensible, and reasonably current.

Environmental Mitigation

15. How can planning-level efforts best support advance mitigation, 
mitigation banking, and priorities for environmental mitigation 
investments?

    A lesson learned from efforts to establish mitigation banks and 
advance mitigation

[[Page 31840]]

agreements and alternative mitigation options is the importance of 
beginning interagency discussions during the transportation planning 
process. Development pressures, habitat alteration, complicated real 
estate transactions, and competition for potential mitigation sites 
by public and private project proponents can encumber the already 
difficult task of mitigating for ``like'' value and function and 
reinforce the need to examine mitigation strategies as early as 
possible.
    Robust use of remote sensing, GIS, and decision support systems 
for evaluating conservation strategies are all contributing to the 
advancement of natural resource and environmental planning. The 
outputs from environmental planning can now better inform 
transportation planning processes, including the development of 
mitigation strategies, so that transportation and conservation goals 
can be optimally met. For example, long-range transportation plans 
can be screened to assess the effect of general travel corridors or 
density, on the viability of sensitive plant and animal species or 
habitats. This type of screening provides a basis for early 
collaboration among transportation and environmental staffs, the 
public, and regulatory agencies to explore areas where impacts must 
be avoided and identify areas for mitigation investments. This can 
lead to mitigation strategies that are both more economical and more 
effective from an environmental stewardship perspective than 
traditional project-specific mitigation measures.

III. Administrative Issues

16. Are federal funds eligible to pay for these additional, or more 
in depth, environmental studies in transportation planning?

    Yes. For example, the following FHWA and FTA funds may be 
utilized for conducting environmental studies and analyses within 
transportation planning:
     FHWA planning and research funds, as defined under 23 
CFR Part 420 (e.g., Metropolitan Planning (PL), Statewide Planning 
and Research (SPR), National Highway System (NHS), Surface 
Transportation Program (STP), and Equity Bonus); and
     FTA planning and research funds (49 U.S.C. 5303 and 49 
U.S.C. 5313(b)), urban formula funds (49 U.S.C. 5307), and (in 
limited circumstances) transit capital investment funds (49 U.S.C. 
5309).
    The eligible transportation planning-related uses of these funds 
may include: (a) Conducting feasibility or subarea/corridor needs 
studies and (b) developing system-wide environmental information/
inventories (e.g., wetland banking inventories or standards to 
identify historically significant sites). Particularly in the case 
of PL and SPR funds, the proposed expenditure must be closely 
related to the development of transportation plans and programs 
under 23 U.S.C. 134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306.
    For FHWA funding programs, once a general travel corridor or 
specific project has progressed to a point in the preliminary 
engineering/NEPA phase that clearly extends beyond transportation 
planning, additional in-depth environmental studies must be funded 
through the program category for which the ultimate project 
qualifies (e.g., NHS, STP, Interstate Maintenance, and/or Bridge), 
rather than PL or SPR funds.
    Another source of funding is FHWA's Transportation Enhancement 
program, which may be used for activities such as: Conducting 
archeological planning and research; developing inventories such as 
those for historic bridges and highways, and other surface 
transportation-related structures; conducting studies to determine 
the extent of water pollution due to highway runoff; and conducting 
studies to reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while 
maintaining habitat connectivity.
    The FHWA and the FTA encourage State DOTs, MPOs, and public 
transportation operators to seek partners for some of these studies 
from environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies, non-
government organizations, and other government and private sector 
entities with similar data needs, or environmental interests. In 
some cases, these partners may contribute data and expertise to the 
studies, as well as funding.

17. What staffing or organizational arrangements may be helpful in 
allowing planning products to be accepted in the NEPA process?

    Certain organizational and staffing arrangements may support a 
more integrated approach to the planning/NEPA decisionmaking 
continuum. In many cases, planning organizations do not have 
environmental expertise on staff or readily accessible. Likewise, 
the review and regulatory responsibilities of many environmental, 
regulatory, and resource agencies make involvement in the 
transportation planning process a challenge for staff resources. 
These challenges may be partially met by improved use of the outputs 
of each agency's planning resources and by augmenting their 
capabilities through greater use of GIS and remote sensing 
technologies (see http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/ for additional 
information on the use of GIS). Sharing databases and the planning 
products of local land use decision-makers and State and Federal 
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies also provide 
efficiencies in acquiring and sharing the data and information 
needed for both transportation planning and NEPA work.
    Additional opportunities such as shared staff, training across 
disciplines, and (in some cases) reorganizing to eliminate 
structural divisions between planning and NEPA practitioners may 
also need to be considered in order to better integrate NEPA 
considerations into transportation planning studies. The answers to 
the following two questions also contain useful information on 
training and staffing opportunities.

18. How have environmental, regulatory, and resource agency 
liaisons (federally- and state DOT-funded positions) and 
partnership agreements been used to provide the expertise and 
interagency participation needed to enhance the consideration of 
environmental factors in the planning process?

    For several years, States have utilized Federal and State 
transportation funds to support focused and accelerated project 
review by a variety of local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies. 
While Section 1309(e) of the TEA-21 and its successor in SAFETEA-LU 
section 6002 speak specifically to transportation project 
streamlining, there are other authorities that have been used to 
fund positions, such as the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31 
U.S.C. 6505). In addition, long-term, on-call consultant contracts 
can provide backfill support for staff that are detailed to other 
parts of an agency for temporary assignments. At last count (as of 
2003), 246 positions were being funded. Additional information on 
interagency funding agreements is available at: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/igdocs/index.htm.
    Moreover, every State has advanced a variety of stewardship and 
streamlining initiatives that necessitate early involvement of 
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies in the project 
development process. Such process improvements have: Addressed the 
exchange of data to support avoidance and impact analysis; 
established formal and informal consultation and review schedules; 
advanced mitigation strategies; and resulted in a variety of 
programmatic reviews. Interagency agreements and workplans have 
evolved to describe performance objectives, as well as specific 
roles and responsibilities related to new streamlining initiatives. 
Some States have improved collaboration and efficiency by co-
locating environmental, regulatory, and resource and transportation 
agency staff.

19. What training opportunities are available to MPOs, state DOTs, 
public transportation operators and environmental, regulatory, and 
resource agencies to assist in their understanding of the 
transportation planning and NEPA processes?

    Both the FHWA and the FTA offer a variety of transportation 
planning, public involvement, and NEPA courses through the National 
Highway Institute and/or the National Transit Institute. Of 
particular note is the Linking Planning and NEPA Workshop, which 
provides a forum and facilitated group discussion among and between 
State DOT; MPO; Federal, Tribal, and State environmental, 
regulatory, and resource agencies; and FHWA/FTA representatives (at 
both the executive and program manager levels) to develop a State-
specific action plan that will provide for strengthened linkages 
between the transportation planning and NEPA processes.
    Moreover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offers Green 
Infrastructure Workshops that are focused on integrating planning 
for natural resources (``green infrastructure'') with the 
development, economic, and other infrastructure needs of society 
(``gray infrastructure'').
    Robust planning and multi-issue environmental screening requires 
input from a wide variety of disciplines, including information 
technology; transportation planning; the NEPA process; and 
regulatory, permitting, and environmental specialty areas (e.g., 
noise, air quality, and biology). Senior managers at transportation 
and partner agencies can arrange a variety of

[[Page 31841]]

individual training programs to support learning curves and skill 
development that contribute to a strengthened link of the 
transportation planning and NEPA processes. Formal and informal 
mentoring on an intra-agency basis can be arranged. Employee 
exchanges within and between agencies can be periodically scheduled, 
and persons involved with professional leadership programs can seek 
temporary assignments with partner agencies.

IV. Additional Information on This Topic

    Valuable sources of information are FHWA's environment Web site 
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/index.htm) and FTA's 
environmental streamlining Web site (http://www.environment.fta.dot.gov). Another source of information and case 
studies is NCHRP Report 8-38 (Consideration of Environmental Factors 
in Transportation Systems Planning), which is available at http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+8-38. In addition, 
AASHTO's Center for Environmental Excellence Web site is 
continuously updated with news and links to information of interest 
to transportation and environmental professionals 
(www.transportation.environment.org).

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

0
2. Revise part 613 to read as follows:

PART 613--METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE AND NONMETROPOLITAN PLANNING

Subpart A--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
Sec.
613.100 Metropolitan transportation planning and programming.
Subpart B--Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning and 
Programming
613.200 Statewide and Nonmetropolitan transportation planning and 
programming.

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 217(g); 42 U.S.C. 3334, 
4233, 4332, 7410 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306, 5323(k); and 49 CFR 
1.85, 1.51(f) and 21.7(a).

Subpart A--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming


Sec.  613.100  Metropolitan transportation planning and programming.

    The regulations in 23 CFR part 450, subpart C, shall be followed in 
complying with the requirements of this subpart. The definitions in 23 
CFR part 450, subpart A, shall apply.

Subpart B--Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning 
and Programming


Sec.  613.200  Statewide and Nonmetropolitan transportation planning 
and programming.

    The regulations in 23 CFR part 450, subpart B, shall be followed in 
complying with the requirements of this subpart. The definitions in 23 
CFR part 450, subpart A, shall apply.

[FR Doc. 2014-12155 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P