Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and
Programming
Scope
of the metropolitan transportation planning process: Sec. 450.306
Funding
for transportation planning and unified planning work programs: Sec. 450.308
Metropolitan
planning organization designation and redesignation: Sec. 450.310
Metropolitan
planning area boundaries: Sec. 450.312
Metropolitan
planning agreements: Sec. 450.314
Interested
parties, participation, and consultation: Sec.
450.316
Transportation
planning studies and project development: Sec.
450.318
Congestion
management process in transportation management areas: Sec. 450.320
Development
and content of the metropolitan transportation plan: Sec. 450.322
Development
and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP): Sec. 450.324
TIP
revisions and relationship to the STIP: Sec.
450.326
TIP
action by the FHWA and the FTA: Sec.
450.328
Project
selection from the TIP: Sec. 450.330
Annual
listing of obligated projects: Sec.
450.332
Self-certifications
and Federal certifications: Sec. 450.334
Applicability
of NEPA to metropolitan transportation plans and programs: Sec. 450.336
Phase-in
of new requirements: Sec. 450.338
Post and view comments on this section
The purposes of this subpart are to implement the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303, as amended, which: (1) Sets forth the
national policy that the MPO designated for each urbanized area is to
carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive multimodal
transportation planning process, including the development of a
metropolitan transportation plan and a transportation improvement
program (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 (2)
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).
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.300 would be retained. The statement of purpose
would be slightly revised to include a specific reference to
``accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities,'' as specified
in 23 U.S.C. 134(c)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(c)(2).
Post and view comments on this section
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to organizations and
entities responsible for the transportation planning and programming
processes in metropolitan planning areas.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.302 would be retained with minor changes to
reflect current statutory citations related to metropolitan
transportation planning and programming.
Post and view comments on this section
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.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) 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 all
motorized and non-motorized users;
(3) Increase the ability of the transportation system to support
homeland security and to safeguard the personal security of all
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.
(b) Consideration of the planning factors in paragraph (a) of this
section should be reflected, as appropriate, in all aspects of the
metropolitan transportation planning process, including activities such
as the formulation of goals, objectives, performance measures, and
evaluation criteria for use in developing the metropolitan
transportation plan; identification of prioritization criteria for
projects and strategies reflected in the TIP; and development of short-
range planning studies, strategic planning and/or policy studies, or
transportation needs studies.
(c) The failure to consider any factor specified in paragraph (a)
of this section shall not be reviewable by any court in any matter
affecting a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, a project or
strategy, or the certification of a metropolitan transportation
planning process.
(d) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall be
carried out in coordination with the statewide transportation planning
process required by 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5304.
(e) In carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning
process, MPOs, States, and public transportation operators are
encouraged to apply asset management principles and techniques in
establishing planning goals, defining TIP priorities, and assessing
transportation investment decisions, including transportation system
safety, operations, preservation, and maintenance, as well as
strategies and policies to support homeland security and to safeguard
the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users.
(f) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall be
consistent with the development of applicable regional intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) architectures, as defined in 23 CFR part
940.
(g) The metropolitan transportation planning process should be
consistent with the development of Coordinated Public Transit-Human
Services Transportation Plans, as required by 49 U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and
5317.
(h) The metropolitan transportation planning process should be
consistent with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, as specified in 23
U.S.C. 148, and the Regional Transit Security Strategy, as required by
the Department of Homeland Security.
(i) The FHWA and the FTA shall designate as a transportation
management area (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 additional urbanized area as a TMA
on the request of the Governor and the MPO designated for that area.
(j) 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
[[Page 33542]]
the complexity of the transportation problems in the area. The
simplified procedures shall be developed by the MPO in cooperation with
the State(s) and public transportation operator(s).
Post and view comments on this section
For purposes of simplification, existing Sec. 450.316(a) would be
relocated to Sec. 450.306(a), re-titled and revised by replacing the
16 planning factors from ISTEA with the eight planning factors in 23
U.S.C. 134(h)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(1). See ``Key Statutory
Changes'' above. The planning factors are based on the language in the
statute, with the exception of minor amplification of the factor on
``security.''
Proposed paragraph (b) provides general information on the use of
and application of the eight planning factors throughout the
metropolitan transportation planning process.
Proposed paragraph (c) is consistent with language in 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2) that the failure to consider any of
the factors shall not be reviewable by any court in any matter
affecting a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or the FHWA/FTA
certification of a metropolitan transportation planning process.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require metropolitan transportation
planning processes to be coordinated with the statewide transportation
planning process as specified in 23 U.S.C. 135(b) and U.S.C. 5304(b).
Paragraph (e) is proposed to encourage MPOs to apply asset
management principles and techniques in establishing planning goals,
defining TIP priorities, and assessing transportation investment
decisions to include system operations, preservation, and maintenance,
as well as strategies and policies to support homeland security and to
safeguard the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized
users. Paragraph (f) is proposed to ensure that metropolitan
transportation planning processes are carried out in a consistent
manner with regional ITS architectures in 23 CFR part 940 (based on the
ITS consistency requirement under section 5206(e) of the TEA-21).
Paragraph (g) is proposed to address the need for transportation
planning processes to be consistent with the development of Coordinated
Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans, as required by 49
U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and 5317 as amended by the SAFETEA-LU.
Paragraph (h) is proposed to promote consistency with the
metropolitan transportation planning process and the
Safety Plan, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 148, and with the Regional
Transit Security Strategy, as required by the Department of Homeland
Security.
Paragraph (i) would re-locate and slightly revise the information
contained in existing Sec. 450.312(f) regarding the designation of
urbanized areas over 200,000 population as transportation management
areas (TMAs), as specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(1) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(k)(1).
Paragraph (j) would re-locate and slightly revise the information
contained in existing Sec. 450.316(c) regarding the opportunity for
MPOs serving non-TMAs in attainment of the NAAQS to propose (in
cooperation with the State(s) and the public transportation
operator(s)) a procedure for developing an abbreviated metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP, for approval by the FHWA and the FTA.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) Funds provided under 23 U.S.C. 104(f), 49 U.S.C. 5305(d), 49
U.S.C. 5307, and 49 U.S.C. 5339 are available to MPOs to accomplish
activities in this subpart. At the State's option, funds provided under
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) and (b)(3) and 23 U.S.C. 105 may also be provided
to MPOs for 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)(3)(E) for metropolitan transportation
planning activities.
(b) Metropolitan transportation planning activities performed with
funds provided under title 23, U.S.C. and title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53
shall be documented 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 one or two-year period by major activity and task (including
activities that address the planning factors in Sec. 450.306(a)), 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 would include a description of the major activities to be
performed during the next one- or two-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 C8100.1B
(Program Guidance and Application Instructions for Metropolitan
Planning Grants).
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.314 would be slightly revised, re-titled, and
redesignated as Sec. 450.308. Proposed paragraph (a) discusses the
categories of Federal funds that may be used for metropolitan
transportation planning.
Proposed paragraph (b) would remove the reference to TMAs contained
in existing Sec. 450.314, with the intent of stressing that all MPOs
have a responsibility to meet the requirements of this section.
However, proposed paragraph (d) would continue the provision in 23
U.S.C. 134(l) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(l) that all MPOs serving non-TMAs may
develop a simplified statement of work in lieu of a UPWP.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) To carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process
under this subpart, a metropolitan planning organization (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) An MPO should be designated, to the extent possible, under
specific State legislation, State enabling legislation, or by
interstate compact, and shall have authority to carry out
transportation planning for the entire area that it serves.
(d) When an MPO that serves a TMA is designated or redesignated,
the MPO shall include local elected officials, officials of agencies
that administer or operate major modes of transportation, and
appropriate State transportation officials.
(e) To the extent possible, only one MPO should 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 construed to interfere with
the authority, under any State law in effect on December 18, 1991, of a
public agency with multimodal transportation responsibilities to
develop the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for adoption by
the MPO, or to develop long-range capital plans, coordinate transit
services, and projects and carry out other activities pursuant to State
law.
(g) Nothing in this subpart shall be deemed to prohibit an MPO from
utilizing the staff resources of other agencies to carry out selected
elements of the metropolitan transportation planning process.
(h) An MPO designation shall remain in effect until an official
redesignation has been made in accordance with this section.
(i) 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).
(j) Redesignation of an MPO serving a multi-State 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).
(k) For the purposes of redesignation, units of general purpose
local government may be defined as either:
(1) The local elected officials currently serving on the MPO; or
(2) The elected officials from each unit of general purpose local
government located within the metropolitan planning area served by the
existing MPO.
(l) Redesignation of an MPO is required whenever the existing MPO
determines that:
(1) There is 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) There is a substantial change in the decisionmaking authority
or responsibility of the MPO, or in decisionmaking procedures
established under MPO by-laws.
(m) The following changes to an MPO do not require a redesignation:
(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
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.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.306 would be revised, re-titled, and
redesignated as Sec. 450.310. While much of the content of existing
Sec. 450.306 would not be significantly changed, a number of new
paragraphs are proposed to address issues that have arisen since the
enactment of the ISTEA in 1991, including the impacts of the 2000
decennial census.
Proposed paragraph (c) would provide that specific State
legislation, State enabling legislation, or interstate compact should
be utilized, to the extent possible, for designating MPOs.
Proposed paragraph (d) would mirror the language in 23 U.S.C.
134(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2) outlining the composition of MPOs
that serve TMAs.
Proposed paragraph (e) would provide clarifying information
regarding multiple MPOs serving a single urbanized area, primarily
based on language in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(6) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(6).
Additional language is proposed regarding the development of written
agreements between two or more MPOs serving the same urbanized area to
clearly identify areas of coordination and the division of
responsibilities among the MPOs.
Proposed paragraph (g) would retain existing Sec. 450.306(e)
regarding the opportunity for MPOs to utilize the staff of other
agencies to carry out selected elements of the metropolitan
transportation planning process.
New proposed paragraph (h) clarifies that a designated MPO remains
in effect until it has been officially redesignated.
Proposed paragraph (k) would provide clarifying information on what
constitutes ``units of general purpose local government.''
Proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) would provide clarifying
information on situations that may or may not necessitate MPO
redesignations. Since promulgation of the existing rule in 1993, the
FHWA and the FTA have addressed a number of issues on this topic. On
March 30, 2005, FHWA and FTA issued joint guidance entitled ``FHWA/FTA
Guidance on Designation and Redesignation of MPOs'' \14\ to address
inconsistencies that existed between 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and
23 CFR part 450 on the designation and redesignation of MPOs. This
joint guidance also provided clarifying information and illustrative
examples of scenarios that may or may not trigger MPO redesignations,
based on several actual events that transpired since the enactment of
the TEA-21. The proposed text is based on this previously-issued
guidance.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) The boundaries of a metropolitan planning area (MPA) shall be
determined by agreement between the MPO and the Governor. 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. 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) If any of the urbanized area(s) served by the MPO lie within a
nonattainment or maintenance area for ozone, carbon monoxide, or
particulate matter as designated under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.) as of August 10, 2005, the MPA boundaries in existence at
that time shall be retained. However, the MPA boundaries may be
adjusted by agreement of the Governor and affected MPOs to encompass
the entire nonattainment or maintenance area by agreement of the
Governor.
(c) An MPA boundary may encompass more than one urbanized area.
(d) The 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, 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 significantly change the composition of the MPO may
require redesignation of one or more such MPOs.
(i) The MPA boundaries shall be reviewed after each Census by the
MPO (in cooperation with the State and public transportation
operator(s)) to determine if existing MPA boundaries meet the minimum
statutory requirements for new and updated urbanized area(s), and shall
be adjusted 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,
reduces access disadvantages experienced by 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.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.308 would be re-titled, redesignated as Sec.
450.312 and revised to reflect the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU changes to
23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
Proposed paragraph (a) would retain the option in existing Sec.
450.308(a) ofextending the metropolitan planning area (MPA) boundary to the limits
of the metropolitan statistical area or combined statistical area, as
provided in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(e)(2)(B).
Proposed paragraph (b) would replace existing Sec. 450.308(a) and
includes the option to expand the MPA boundary to encompass the entire
area designated as nonattainment for the ozone, carbon monoxide, or
particulate matter NAAQS.
Proposed paragraph (c) allows a MPA boundary to encompass more than
one urbanized area.
Proposed paragraph (d) states that a MPA boundary may be
established to coincide with the geography of regional economic
development and growth forecasting areas. This provision is intended to
provide impetus for strengthening linkages between metropolitan
transportation planning and economic development planning, as
articulated in 23 U.S.C. 134(g)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(g)(3).
Proposed paragraph (e) allows new census designated urbanized areas
within an existing MPA without requiring redesignation of the existing
MPO.
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses situations where the boundaries of
an urbanized area or MPA extend across two or more States to encourage
coordinated transportation planning in multistate areas.
Proposed paragraph (g) explicitly states that a MPA boundary shall
not overlap with another MPA.
Proposed paragraph (h) establishes options for addressing
situations in which part of an urbanized area extends into an adjacent
MPA. The affected MPOs may either adjust their respective MPA
boundaries so that the urbanized area lies only within one MPA or
establish written agreements that clearly identify areas of
coordination and division of transportation planning responsibilities
between the MPOs.
Proposed paragraph (j) provides clarifying information to existing
Sec. 450.308(d) on the need for approved MPA boundaries to be provided
to the FHWA and the FTA in sufficient detail to be accurately
delineated on a map. The FHWA and the FTA would collect this data for
informational purposes only to understand national policy issues such
as the dynamics related to multiple planning geographies (e.g., MPA
boundaries compared to air quality nonattainment and maintenance
areas).
Post and view comments on this section
(a) The MPO, the State(s), and the public transportation
operator(s) shall cooperatively determine their mutual responsibilities
in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process. These
responsibilities shall be clearly identified in a written agreement
among the MPO, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s)
serving the MPA.
(1) The written agreement shall include specific provisions for
cooperatively developing and sharing information related to the
development of financial plans that support the metropolitan
transportation plan (see Sec. 450.322) and the metropolitan TIP (see
Sec. 450.324) and development of the annual listing of obligated
projects (see Sec. 450.332).
(2) The written agreement should include provisions for consulting
with officials responsible for other types of planning affected by
transportation, including State and local planned growth, economic
development, environmental protection, airport operations, freight
movements, safety/security operations, and providers of non-emergency
transportation services receiving financial assistance from a source
other than title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53 that may include (as
appropriate) transportation planning products or milestones
representing consultation opportunities and/or periodic review of the
various consultation mechanisms.
(b) 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 rule (40 CFR part 93). The agreement shall address policy
mechanisms for resolving conflicts concerning transportation-related
emissions that may arise between the MPA and the portion of the
nonattainment or maintenance area outside the MPA.
(c) 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.
(d) If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an urbanized
area, there shall be a written agreement between 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. 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.
(e) 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
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.
(f) If part of an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA
overlaps into an adjacent MPA that does not primarily serve a TMA, the
entire adjacent urbanized area is not necessarily considered a TMA.
However, at a minimum, there shall be a written agreement between the
State(s), the MPOs, and the public transportation operator(s)
describing how specific TMA requirements (e.g., congestion management
process, Surface Transportation Program funds suballocated to the
urbanized area over 200,000 population, and project selection) will be
met for the overlapping part of the urbanized area contained in the
TMA.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.310 and Sec. 450.312 would be combined,
revised, re-titled, and redesignated as Sec. 450.314.
The content of existing Sec. 450.310(a), (b) and (d) would be
combined and largely retained in proposed paragraph (a), except that
the reference to ``corridor and subarea studies'' in existing Sec.
450.310(a) would be removed. ``Corridor and subarea studies'' are
proposed to be addressed in Sec. 450.318.
Proposed paragraph (a) requires a written agreement(s) by the MPO,
State(s), and public transportation operator(s) that clearly identifies
their mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan
transportation planning process.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require such an agreement(s) to
include specific provisions for the cooperative development and sharing
of information related to the financial plans that support the
metropolitan transportation plan, the TIP and the annual listing of
obligated projects. This proposed paragraph is intended to articulate
the cooperative relationships reflected in the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-
LU.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would encourage the written agreement(s)
to include provisions for consulting with officials responsible for
other types of planning affected by transportation (e.g., State and
local planned growth, economic development, environmental protection,
airport operations, freight movements, non-emergency transportation
service providers funded by other sources than title 49, U.S.C.,
Chapter 53, and safety/security operations). This proposed paragraph is
intended to articulate the extensive cooperative relationships
reflected in the 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
Proposed paragraph (b) regarding interagency cooperation in MPAs
that do not include the entire air quality nonattainment or maintenance
areas would retain existing 450.310(f), except for minor wording
changes for clarification.
Proposed paragraph (c) would retain existing Sec. 450.310(c),
except for minor wording changes for clarification.
Existing Sec. 450.310(d) would be removed since more than one
agreement may be necessary to cover the realm of the various
cooperative working relationships necessary to undertake comprehensive
metropolitan transportation planning.
Existing Sec. 450.310(e) would be removed, since new proposed
Sec. 450.308 contains additional information on cooperative working
relationships to be documented in the UPWP or simplified statement of
work.
Proposed paragraph (d) combines several paragraphs from existing
Sec. 450.310 and Sec. 450.312 regarding cooperative agreements among
planning agencies when more than one MPO serves a single urbanized
area. Proposed paragraph (d) requires coordination of metropolitan
transportation plans and TIPs, and strongly encourages coordinated data
collection, analysis, and planning assumptions across and between the
MPOs, including coordination when transportation improvements extend
across the boundaries of more than one MPA. This proposed paragraph
also allows multiple MPOs to jointly develop a single, coordinated
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire urbanized area.
Proposed paragraph (e) includes provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134(f) and
49 U.S.C. 5303(f) for situations in which the boundaries of the
urbanized area or MPA extend across two or more States.
Proposed paragraph (f) would specifically allow for part of an
urbanized area designated as a TMA to overlap into an adjacent MPA
serving a non-TMA urbanized area without requiring the entire adjacent
urbanized area also to be designated as a TMA. While MPA boundaries may
not overlap, more than one MPO may serve a single MPA. Proposed
paragraph (f) would require TMAs to establish formal agreements that
clearly define specific MPO responsibilities within the urbanized area.
This proposed change acknowledges the geographical boundary
complexities that arose with the 2000 census.\15\ If the affected MPOs
choose to pursue this option, proposed paragraph (f) would require the
development of a written agreement between the MPOs, the State(s), and
the public transportation operator(s) describing how specific TMA
requirements (e.g., congestion management process, surface
transportation program funds suballocated to the urbanized area over
200,000 population, and project selection) will be met for the
overlapping part of the urbanized area.
Existing Sec. 450.312(i) has been retained, expanded, and
relocated to proposed Sec. 450.316(c) discussed below.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) The MPO shall develop and use a documented participation plan
that defines a process for providing citizens, 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,
agencies or entities responsible for safety/security operations,
providers of non-emergency transportation services receiving financial
assistance from a source other than title 49, U.S.C, Chapter 53, and
other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved
in the metropolitan transportation planning process.
(1) The participation plan shall be developed by the MPO 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 but not limited to 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 initially made available for public comment;
(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), 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 posted on
the World Wide Web, to the maximum extent practicable.
(b) In developing metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, the
MPO shall consult, as appropriate, with agencies and officials
responsible for other planning activities within the MPA that are
affected by transportation. To coordinate the planning functions to the
maximum extent practicable, such consultation shall compare
metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, as they are developed, with
the plans, maps, inventories, and planning documents developed by other
agencies. This consultation shall include, as appropriate, contacts
with State, local, Indian Tribal, and private agencies responsible for
planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, airport
operations, freight movements, land use management, natural resources,
conservation, and historic preservation. In addition, transportation
plans and TIPs shall be developed 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. 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) The MPOs are encouraged to 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.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.316(b) would be revised, expanded, re-titled,
and redesignated as Sec. 450.316. Since the enactment of the ISTEA in
1991, MPOs have been required to develop and utilize a proactive public
involvement process that provides complete information, timely public
notice, full public access to key decisions, and supports early and
continuing involvement of the public in developing metropolitan
transportation plans and TIPs. Title 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(5) as amended by the SAFETEA-LU expanded the public involvement
provisions by requiring MPOs to develop and utilize ``participation
plans'' that are developed in consultation with an expanded list of
``interested parties'' identified in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(A) and 49
U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(A). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraph (a) would describe the requirement in 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(5)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(B) as amended by the SAFETEA-LU
for developing and using a documented Participation Plan and would
retain much of the content from existing Sec. 450.316(b), with
additional language provided to directly address the requirement in 23
U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5303 for extensive stakeholder
``participation'' that is above and beyond ``public involvement.''
Specifically, proposed paragraph (a) would re-state the requirements in
23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(C) for the MPO to hold
any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times,
employ visualization techniques to describe metropolitan transportation
plans and TIPs, and make public information available in electronically
accessible format and means (such as the World Wide Web).
The FHWA and the FTA recognize that there are myriad ways to use
visualization techniques to better convey plans and programs and there
are wide variations among MPO capabilities and needs, especially
between large, established MPOs and small, new MPOs. States and MPOs
may use everything from static maps to interactive GIS systems, from
artist renderings and physical models to photo manipulation to computer
simulation. Visualization can be used to support plans, individual
projects or Scenario Planning, where various future scenarios are
depicted to allow stakeholders to develop a shared vision for the
future by analyzing various forces (e.g., health, transportation,
economic, environment, land use, etc.) that affect growth.
While the FHWA and the FTA will encourage States and MPOs to
identify and implement the most appropriate visualization technique for
their particular circumstances, we do not propose to specify when
specific techniques must be used. As technology continues to change and
visualization techniques evolve, we anticipate that the techniques will
be varied as they appropriately illustrate the project or plans they
are trying to explain.
The FHWA and the FTA will provide technical assistance and
information to States and MPOs on how to deploy different visualization
techniques and will share noteworthy practices to highlight innovations
that provide the public, elected and appointed officials and other
stakeholders with better opportunities to understand the various
options proposed for plans and programs. The FHWA and the FTA will
share this information through the Transportation Planning Capacity
Building Program, Web sites and publications.
Title 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(B), as
amended by SAFETEA-LU, require development of a participation plan. The
FHWA and the FTA propose that the participation plan include elements
of the public involvement process currently required of MPOs, as well
as new requirements mandated by SAFETEA-LU. Proposed paragraph (a)
identifies the interested parties to be included in the metropolitan
transportation planning process, largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316(b) regarding the public involvement process and
builds on that process to describe the requirements of the new
participation plan.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(v) that would require the participation
plan to demonstrate explicit consideration and response to public input
received during the development of the metropolitan transportation plan
and the TIP.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(vi) that would require the participation
plan to seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally
underserved by existing transportation systems, including low-income
and minority households.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(viii) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 405.316(b)(1)(viii) that would require the participation
plan to provide an additional opportunity for public comment, if the
final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP differs significantly
from the version that was initially made available for public comment.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ix) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316 (b)(1)(xi) that the participation plan be
coordinated with the statewide transportation planning public
involvement and consultation processes.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(x) largely retains the language in
existing Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(ix) requiring MPOs to periodically review
the participation plan's effectiveness to ensure a full and open
participation process.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) largely retains the language in existing
Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(vii) regarding the MPO's disposition of comments
received on the draft metropolitan transportation plan or TIP as part
of the final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would retain the language in existing
Sec. 450.316(b)(1)(i) requiring a minimum public comment period of 45
calendar days be provided before the initial or revised participation
plan is adopted by the MPO.
Proposed paragraph (b) reiterates the language in 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4) that requires MPOs to consult with
agencies and officials responsible for other planning activities within
the MPA that are affected by transportation in the development of
metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs. See ``Key Statutory
Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) expand upon existing Sec.
450.312(i) regarding MPO consultation with Indian Tribal governments or
Federal land management agencies in the development of metropolitan
plans and TIPs when the MPA includes Indian Tribal lands or Federal
public lands. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraph (e) encourages MPOs to develop a documented
process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key decision
points for consulting with other governments and agencies, as defined
in proposed paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). Such procedures may be
included in the agreement(s) developed under proposed Sec. 450.314.
This proposed paragraph is intended to communicate the importance for
MPOs to consult with a diverse array of State, local, and Indian Tribal
governments and agencies in carrying out comprehensive metropolitan
transportation planning.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) The MPO, State, and/or public transportation operator may
undertake a corridor or subarea planning study as part of the
metropolitan transportation planning process. The results of these
transportation planning studies may be incorporated into the overall
project development process to the extent that they meet the
requirements of 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 be used to produce 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
(i.e., highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination);
(3) Preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of
unreasonable alternatives;
(4) Description of the affected environment; and/or
(5) Preliminary identification of environmental impacts and
environmental mitigation.
(b) Publicly available documents produced by, or in support of, the
transportation planning process described in this subpart may be
incorporated by reference into subsequent NEPA documents, in accordance
with 40 CFR 1502.21, to the extent that:
(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 corridor or subarea planning study is conducted with:
(i) Involvement of interested State, local, Tribal, and Federal
agencies;
(ii) Public review;
(iii) Continual 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 incorporating the subarea or corridor
planning study into the draft Environmental Impact Statement or
Environmental Assessment and other means of incorporation by reference
that the NEPA lead agencies deem appropriate. Additional details on
linkages between the transportation planning and project development/
NEPA processes is contained in Appendix A to this part.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.318 would be revised and re-titled. Section 1308
of the TEA-21 eliminated the major investment study (MIS) as a separate
requirement and required the Secretary to integrate, as appropriate,
the remaining aspects and features of the MIS (and associated corridor
or subarea studies) into the transportation planning and NEPA
regulations (23 CFR part 771).
Since 1998, the FHWA and the FTA (in cooperation with Federal,
environmental, resource, and regulatory agencies) have undertaken
several initiatives to promote strengthened linkages between the
transportation planning and project development/NEPA processes under
existing legislative, statutory, and regulatory authorities. In
particular, on February 22, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA disseminated
legal analysis and program guidance entitled ``Linking the
Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes''.\16\ Although voluntary to
States, MPOs, and public transportation operators, this program
guidance was intended to articulate how information, analysis, and
products from metropolitan and statewide transportation planning
processes could be incorporated into and relied upon in the NEPA
process under existing Federal statutes and regulations. Proposed Sec.
450.318 is structured around the guiding principles and legal opinion
reflected in that document.
Post and view comments on this section
(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.
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, and improve
transportation system management and operations. 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.
(c) 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 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;
(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 measures. The results of this evaluation shall
be provided to decisionmakers and the public to provide guidance on
selection of effective strategies for future implementation.
(d) 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.
(e) In nonattainment and maintenance area TMAs, the congestion
management process shall provide an appropriate analysis of all
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. 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.
(f) 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.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.320 would be retained as Sec. 450.320, and
revised and re-titled to reflect the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3)
and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3) that TMAs develop and use a congestion
management process. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
The SAFETEA-LU amended 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3)
to require that the planning process in a TMA include a congestion
management ``process'' instead of a ``system''. This section is based
on most of the information on ``congestion management systems''
contained in 23 CFR part 500. Therefore, this proposed rulemaking
transfers the TMA congestion management ``system'' requirements in 23
CFR 500.109 to this subpart. The intent is to reiterate the importance
of the congestion management process to TMA transportation planning and
programming and consolidate this TMA requirement with the rest of the
requirements for TMA planning processes.
In the past the CMS requirement, perhaps because it was a separate
regulation, has often been carried out in a stove-piped manner,
separate from the typical MPO planning process and separate from
transportation system operational and management strategies. The
proposed regulations reflect the goal that CMP be an integral part of
developing a long range transportation plan and TIP for TMA MPOs. The
proposed regulation also reflects the FHWA and the FTA goal to have a
common set of performance measures and a common set of goals and
objectives among the CMP, the long range transportation plan and the
transportation systems operational and management strategies for a
region. Items such as the regional ITS architecture and the selection
process for projects to be included in the TIP should be consistent and
seamless with the CMP. As part of developing the CMP, planners should
be working in collaboration with others in the region, including public
transportation operators and State and local operations staff.
Proposed paragraph (a) re-states the language in 23 U.S.C.
134(k)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3) requiring the development and
implementation of a congestion management process in TMAs.
Proposed paragraph (b) largely retains the definition of a CMS
contained in existing 23 CFR 500.109(a)
Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) retain the specific TMA
congestion management language from existing 23 CFR 500.109(b)(1)
through (b)(6).
Proposed paragraph (d) reflects the language in 23 U.S.C. 134(m)(1)
and 49 U.S.C. 5303(m)(1) regarding the use of the congestion management
process in TMAs designated as nonattainment for ozone or carbon
monoxide. Paragraph (d) would require that any project that would
result in a significant increase in the carrying capacity for single
occupant vehicles (SOVs) be addressed through a congestion management
process.
Proposed paragraph (e) largely retains the language in the latter
portion of 23 CFR 500.109(c) requiring analysis of all reasonable
(including multimodal) travel demand reduction and operational
management strategies for the corridor in which a project that would
result in a significant increase in SOV capacity is proposed in
nonattainment and maintenance area TMAs.
Proposed paragraph (f) reflects the language in 23 U.S.C. 135(i)
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(i) allowing State laws, rules, or regulations
pertaining to congestion management systems or processes to constitute
the congestion management process.
The phase-in period defined in 23 CFR 500.109(d)(2) would be
removed from this proposed section since that date has passed.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include
the development of a transportation plan addressing at least a 20-year
planning horizon as of the effective date. 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 lead to the development of an
integrated multimodal transportation system 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 four years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance
areas and at least every five 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 transportation plan (and any revisions) shall be
approved by the MPO and submitted 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 State air quality agency shall coordinate the
development of the transportation control measures (TCMs) in a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) with the MPO. For TCM substitutions or
additions made under section 176(c)(8) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7506(c)(8)), the MPO, State air quality agency, and the EPA must concur
on the equivalency of any substitute TCMs and the addition of new TCMs
to the SIP.
(e) The transportation plan update process shall include a
mechanism for ensuring that the MPO, the State(s), and the public
transportation operator(s) agree that the data utilized in preparing
other existing modal plans providing input to the transportation plan
are valid. 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 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,
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. In addition, the locally preferred alternative
selected from an Alternatives Analysis under the FTA's Capital
Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR part 611) needs to
be adopted as part of the metropolitan transportation plan as a
condition for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309;
(3) 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;
(4) 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 carbon monoxide
or ozone;
(5) 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;
(6) 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 rule (40 CFR
part 93). In all areas (regardless of air quality designation), all
proposed improvements shall be described in sufficient detail to
develop cost estimates;
(7) 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 metropolitan transportation
plan. The discussion shall be developed in consultation with Federal,
State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies.
The MPO may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this
consultation;
(8) Pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation facilities in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g);
(9) Transportation and transit enhancement activities, as
appropriate; and
(10) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted
transportation plan can be implemented, while operating and maintaining
existing facilities and services. For the purpose of developing the
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)(1). 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. 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. 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. 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. In addition, the financial plan may
include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be
included in the adopted transportation plan if additional resources
beyond those identified in the financial plan were available.
Additional criteria and information on financial plans that support
metropolitan transportation plans are contained in Appendix B to this
part.
(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 include a safety
element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals,
countermeasures, or projects for the MPA contained in the Strategic
Highway Safety Plan required under 23 U.S.C. 148, as well as (as
appropriate) emergency relief and disaster preparedness plans and
strategies and policies that support homeland security and safeguard
the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users.
(i) The MPO shall provide citizens, 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).
(j) The metropolitan transportation plan shall be published or
otherwise made readily available by the MPO for public review,
including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically
accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web.
(k) A State or MPO shall not be required to select any project from
the illustrative list of additional projects included in the financial
plan under paragraph (f)(9) of this section.
(l) 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). 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 the most recent conforming transportation plan
and TIP may proceed immediately without revisiting the requirements of
this section, subject to interagency consultation. An interim
metropolitan transportation plan containing eligible projects that are
not from the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP must
meet all the requirements of this section.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.316 would be revised, re-titled, and
redesignated as Sec. 450.322, largely to reflect statutory
requirements from the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU.
Proposed paragraph (a) retains the language under existing Sec.
450.316 that the metropolitan transportation plan must address at least
a 20-year planning horizon. Additional clarifying information would
specify that the minimum 20-year horizon applies at the time the
metropolitan transportation plan is approved by the MPO. Proposed
paragraph (a) would clarify that the effective date of the metropolitan
transportation plan in nonattainment and maintenance areas is the date
of a conformity determination issued by the FHWA and the FTA. This
proposed change is intended to eliminate confusion over the validity of
the metropolitan transportation plan in relation to the timing of the
MPO and the FHWA/FTA conformity determinations, as well as provide a
consistent temporal basis to track the new four-year update cycle
established by the SAFETEA-LU.
Proposed paragraph (c) reflects the provision in 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(1) that metropolitan transportation
plans in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas be updated at
least every four years, instead of the former three-year update cycle.
For attainment area MPOs, proposed paragraph (c) would maintain the
previous 5-year update cycle. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above. In
addition, proposed paragraph (c) would provide MPO discretion to revise
the plan as necessary. The FHWA and the FTA recognize that changes to
transportation plans between formal update cycles may be necessary. We
have proposed definitions for the terms ``administrative
modification,'' ``amendment,'' and ``revision'' to clarify these actions.
Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the State air quality agency
coordination of the development of the TCMs in a SIP. This proposed
paragraph also discusses the ``TCM substitution'' provisions in Section
6011(d) of the SAFETEA-LU.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2) notes that the locally preferred
alternative selected from a planning Alternatives Analysis under the
FTA's Capital Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR part
611) need to be adopted by the MPO as part of the metropolitan
transportation plan as a condition for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
As specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(D),
proposed paragraph (f)(3) would require the metropolitan transportation
plan include 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.
See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
The FHWA and the FTA believe improved planning for the operations
and management of the Nation's transportation system is vitally
important to achieving the high expectations for safety, reliability,
and mobility for people and freight in the 21st century. Operations and
management (or management and operations) is a coordinated approach to
optimizing the performance of existing infrastructure through
implementation of multimodal, intermodal, and often cross-
jurisdictional systems, services, and projects. To be effective,
management and operations must be viewed as a collaborative effort
between transportation planners and managers with responsibility for
day-to-day transportation operations. Management and operations refers
to a broad range of strategies. Examples include traffic detection and
surveillance, work zone management, emergency management, freight
management systems, and traveler information services. Such strategies
enhance reliability and service efficiency; improve public safety and
security; reduce traveler delays associated with incidents and other
events; and improve information for businesses and for the traveling
public.
Proposed paragraph (f)(7) would require, consistent with 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(B), that the metropolitan
transportation plan contain a discussion of potential environmental
mitigation activities (at the policy- and/or strategic-levels, not
project-specific), developed in consultation with Federal, State, and
Tribal regulatory agencies responsible for land management, wildlife,
and other environmental issues. In addition, this proposed paragraph
allows MPOs to establish reasonable timeframes for performing this
consultation. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraph (f)(10) would implement the provision, in 23
U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(C), for a financial plan
to be developed to support the metropolitan transportation plan. In
addition, proposed paragraph (f)(9), states that the financial plan may
include informational ``illustrative projects'' reflecting additional
projects that would be included if other revenue sources were to become
available as allowed by 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(2)(C). Appendix B to this proposed rule contains a revised
version of the FHWA/FTA Guidance on Fiscal Constraint of Transportation
Plans and Programs, which is based on interim guidance issued by the
FHWA and the FTA.
Proposed paragraph (g) would require that the metropolitan
transportation plan be developed, as appropriate, in consultation with
State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural
resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic
preservation, including the comparison of transportation plans to State
and Indian Tribal inventories or plans/maps of natural and historic
resources, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B)(ii) and 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(2)(B)(ii). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
While the title of 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4) is
``Consultation'', it is important to note that the consultation
referenced in proposed paragraph (g) is different from the definition
of consultation in the existing or proposed regulation. The statute
specifically defines ``consultation'' in this section as involving, 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.''
In order to draw a strong link between the Strategic Highway Safety
Planning process described in 23 U.S.C. 148 and the metropolitan
transportation planning process, proposed paragraph (h) states that the
metropolitan transportation plan should include a safety element that
incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, countermeasures, or
projects for the MPA contained in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
This proposed paragraph also seeks to promote consistency between the
development of metropolitan transportation plans and emergency relief/
disaster preparedness plans, as well as strategies and policies that
support homeland security and safeguard the personal security of all
motorized and non-motorized users (as appropriate).
Proposed paragraph (i) would provide opportunities to comment for
the ``interested parties'', specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5) and 49
U.S.C. 5303(i)(5) in the development of the metropolitan transportation
plan, using the participation plan developed under proposed Sec.
450.316.
Proposed paragraph (j) would require the MPO to publish or
otherwise make available the metropolitan transportation plan in
electronically accessible formats and means (such as the World Wide
Web), to the maximum extent practicable as specified in 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(5)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(C). See ``Key Statutory Changes''
above.
The FHWA and the FTA recognize that there are myriad ways to use
visualization techniques to better convey plans and programs. States
and MPOs may use everything from static maps to interactive GIS
systems, from artist renderings and physical models to photo
manipulation to computer simulation. Visualization can be used to
support plans, individual projects or Scenario Planning, where various
future scenarios are depicted to allow stakeholders to develop a shared
vision for the future by analyzing various forces (e.g., health,
transportation, economic, environmental, land use, etc.) that affect
growth. While the FHWA and the FTA will encourage States and MPOs to
identify and implement the most appropriate visualization technique for
their particular circumstances, we do not propose to specify when
specific techniques must be used. There is too much variation among
MPOs and their circumstances to mandate specific visualization
techniques. As technology continues to change and visualization
techniques evolve, we anticipate that the techniques will be varied as
they appropriately illustrate the projects and plans MPOs are trying to
explain.
The FHWA and the FTA will provide technical assistance and
information to States and MPOs on how to deploy different visualization
techniques and will share noteworthy practices to highlight innovations
that provide the public, elected and appointed officials and other stakeholders with
better opportunities to understand the various options proposed for
plans and programs. This information will be shared through the
publications.
Proposed paragraph (l) would be added to authorize utilization of
an interim transportation plan during a conformity lapse, with the
intent to continue funding of exempt projects, transportation control
measures (TCMs) in an approved State Implementation Plan, and other
projects that can advance under a conformity lapse in accordance with
40 CFR part 93. Under the provisions of Sec. 176(c) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended by the SAFETEA-LU, nonattainment and maintenance areas
have 12 months from the time the area misses a deadline to determine
conformity of their transportation plan or TIP before a conformity
lapse occurs. During this conformity lapse grace period, all planning
requirements in this subpart and subpart B must still be met.
Post and view comments on this section
(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 cover a period of not less
than four years, be updated at least every four years, and be approved
by the MPO and the Governor. If the TIP covers more than four years,
the FHWA and the FTA will consider the projects in the additional years
as informational. The TIP may be updated 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
revised TIP, in accordance with the Clean Air Act requirements and the
EPA's transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93).
(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 TIP shall be published
or otherwise made readily available by the MPO 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 include federally supported 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
enhancements;
included in the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan; trails projects;
pedestrian walkways; and bicycle facilities), but excluding:
(1) Safety projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 31102;
(2) Metropolitan planning projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(f),
49 U.S.C. 5305(d), and 49 U.S.C. 5339;
(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, State planning and
research projects funded with National Highway System, Surface
Transportation Program, and/or Equity Bonus 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.
(d) 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 should
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.
(e) The TIP 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, which may extend beyond the four
years of the TIP;
(3) The amount of funds proposed to be obligated during each
program year for the project or phase (by category and source);
(4) Identification of the agencies responsible for carrying out the
project or phase;
(5) In nonattainment and maintenance areas, identification of those
projects which 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
regulation (40 CFR part 93); and
(7) In areas with Americans with Disabilities Act required
paratransit and key station plans, identification of those projects
that will implement these plans.
(f) 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, classifications must be
consistent with the ``exempt project'' classifications contained in the
EPA transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93). 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.
(g) Each project or project phase included in the TIP shall be
consistent with the approved metropolitan transportation plan.
(h) 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)(1). 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;
regionally significant projects that are not Federally funded; and
operation and maintenance of the existing system. The financial plan
may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would
be included in the adopted transportation plan and TIP if reasonable
additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were
available. Additional criteria and information on financial plans that
support the TIP are contained in Appendix B to this part.
(i) 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 two years of the TIP shall be limited to those for which
funds are available or committed. 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, by
source, and which projects are to be implemented using proposed revenue
sources while the entire transportation system is 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.
Additional information on TIP financial constraint and the financial
plan that supports the TIP are contained in appendix B of this part. 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 regulation (40 CFR part 93) and shall provide
for their timely implementation.
(j) 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.
(k) During a conformity lapse, MPOs may prepare an interim TIP as a
basis for advancing projects that are eligible to proceed under a lapse
(as defined in 40 CFR part 93). An interim TIP consisting of eligible
projects from the most recent 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 the most
recent conforming transportation plan and TIP must meet all the
requirements of this section.
(l) Projects in any of the first four years of the TIP may be
advanced in place of another project in the first four years of the
TIP, subject to the project selection requirements of Sec. 450.330. In
addition, the TIP may be revised 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. 450.328).
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.324 would be revised and retained as Sec.
450.324. Except for some restructuring and reorganization, much of the
content of existing Sec. 450.324 would remain intact.
Substantive changes reflected in proposed Sec. 450.324 are
consistent with key legislative and statutory changes resulting from
the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU. Proposed paragraph (a) requires that the
TIP cover a period of at least four years and be updated at least every
four years. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
Proposed paragraph (d) would modify existing Sec. 450.324(f)(4)
and (f)(5) to clarify that all regionally significant projects, whether
federally funded or otherwise, would be included in the metropolitan
TIP for purposes of transportation conformity, fiscal constraint, and
public disclosure.
Proposed paragraph (h) would implement a provision, retained in 23
U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(B), requiring a financial
plan to be developed to support the TIP. Another provision added by
TEA-21, retained in 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(B),
and also reflected in proposed paragraph (h), states that the financial
plan may include informational ``illustrative projects'' reflecting
additional projects that would be included if other revenue sources
were to become available.
Proposed paragraph (i) would retain provisions in existing Sec.
450.324(e) that explains the fiscal constraint standard for TIPs. The
FHWA and the FTA believe that retaining these provisions are extremely
important to meaningful planning and public involvement to ensure that
TIPs are not merely ``wish lists.''
The FHWA and the FTA invite comments on whether the agencies should
require MPOs submitting TIP amendments to demonstrate that funds are
``available or committed'' for projects identified in the TIP in the
year the TIP amendment is submitted and the following year.
Proposed paragraph (k) would be added to authorize utilization of
an interim TIP during a conformity lapse, with the intent to continue
funding exempt projects, transportation control measures (TCMs) in an
approved State Implementation Plan, and other projects that can advance
under a conformity lapse in accordance with 40 CFR part 93. Under the
provisions of Sec. 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended by the
SAFETEA-LU, nonattainment and maintenance areas have 12 months from the
time the area misses a deadline to determine conformity of their
transportation plan or TIP before a conformity lapse occurs. During
this conformity lapse grace period, all planning requirements in this
subpart and subpart B must still be met.
Post and view comments on this section
(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 the TIP is amended by adding or deleting 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. Public participation procedures consistent with
Sec. 450.316(b) shall be utilized in revising the TIP, except that
these procedures are not required for administrative modifications that
only involve projects of the type covered in Sec. 450.324(f).
(b) After approval by the MPO and the Governor, the TIP shall be
included without change, directly or by reference, in the STIP required
under 23 U.S.C. 135. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, a
conformity finding on the TIP must be made by the FHWA and the FTA
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 a TIP including projects under the jurisdiction of these
agencies has been included in the STIP.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.326 and Sec. 450.328 would be combined, re-
titled, and redesignated as Sec. 450.326. The existing regulatory text
would remain largely unchanged. It allows for revision of TIPs through
the addition or deletion of projects, subject to conditions that
protect the principles of fiscal constraint and public involvement. The
FHWA and the FTA recognize that changes to TIPs between formal update
cycles may be necessary. This proposed section intends to clarify that
in nonattainment and maintenance areas, a new conformity determination
is necessary unless the changes to TIPs are administrative
modifications (i.e., addition or deletion of exempt projects).
Consistent with this, proposed paragraph (a) would clarify that a new
conformity determination is necessary when regionally significant non-
exempt projects are added to or deleted from a TIP. Similarly, moving a
project or a phase of a project from year five or later of a TIP to the
first four years would constitute an amendment that would require a new
conformity determination. And, in all areas, changes that affect fiscal
constraint must take place by amendment of the TIP. We have proposed
definitions for the terms ``administrative modification,''
``amendment,'' and ``revision'' to clarify these actions.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) The FHWA and the FTA shall jointly find that each metropolitan
TIP, including amendments thereto, is consistent with the metropolitan
transportation plan produced by the continuing, 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.
450.334, 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 the metropolitan transportation plan has not been updated in
accordance with the cycles defined in Sec. 450.322(c), projects may
only be advanced from a previously approved TIP in attainment areas or
a previously conforming TIP in nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Until the MPO approves (in attainment areas) or the FHWA/FTA issues a
conformity determination on (in nonattainment and maintenance areas)
the updated metropolitan transportation plan, the TIP may not be
amended.
(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. 450.216(e).
(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/or the FTA may approve transit operating assistance for
specific projects or programs funded under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5311, 5316,
and 5317, even though the projects or programs may not be included in
an approved TIP/STIP.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.330 would be redesignated as Sec. 450.328. The
existing regulatory text would be changed slightly for clarification or
technical corrections.
A new paragraph (c) would address situations in which a
metropolitan transportation plan is not updated within the cycles
required in the SAFETEA-LU, and proposes limitations on projects that
could be advanced from an existing TIP. In nonattainment and
maintenance areas, Sec. 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended by the
SAFETEA-LU, provides a 12-month conformity lapse grace period from the
time conformity expires on a plan or TIP before an area enters a
conformity lapse. During the conformity lapse grace period, all
planning requirements defined in 450.322 and 450.324 must still be met.
As long as the TIP is still valid, projects can continue to be
advanced, but amendments to the TIP would require a new conformity
determination.
A new paragraph (e) would be added to address the addition of
``illustrative projects'' to TIPs. This proposed paragraph makes it
clear that no Federal action may be taken on these projects until they
become formally included in the TIP, as specified in statute.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) Once a TIP that meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134(j), 49
U.S.C. 5303(j), and Sec. 450.324 has been developed and approved, the
first year of the TIP shall constitute an ``agreed to'' list of
projects for project selection purposes and no further project
selection action is required for the implementing agency to proceed
with projects, except where the appropriated Federal funds available to
the metropolitan planning area are significantly less than the
authorized amounts or where there are significant shifting of projects
between years. In this case, a revised ``agreed to'' list of projects
shall be jointly developed by the MPO, the State, and the public
transportation operator(s) if requested by the MPO, the State, or the
public transportation operator(s). 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, projects to be
implemented using title 23, U.S.C. funds (other than Federal Lands
Highway program projects) or funds under title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53,
shall be selected by the State and/or the public transportation
operator(s), in cooperation with the MPO from the approved metropolitan
TIP.
accordance with procedures developed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
(c) In areas designated as TMAs, all 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C.,
Chapter 53 funded projects (excluding projects on the
System (NHS) and projects funded under the Bridge, Interstate
Maintenance, and
the MPO in consultation with the State and public transportation
operator(s) from the approved TIP and in accordance with the priorities
in the approved TIP. Projects on the NHS and projects funded under the
Bridge and Interstate Maintenance programs shall be selected by the
State in cooperation with the MPO, from the approved TIP. Federal Lands
Highway program projects shall be selected in accordance with
procedures developed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
(d) Except as provided in Sec. 450.324(c) and Sec. 450.328(f),
projects not included in the federally approved STIP shall not be
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 contained in the applicable SIP in
accordance with the EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR
part 93).
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.332 would be revised, re-titled, and
redesignated as Sec. 450.330. Existing Sec. 450.332(a), (b), and (c)
would be redesignated as Sec. 450.330(b), (c) and (a), respectively,
with largely citation corrections made to the text. In addition,
proposed paragraph (a) has been revised to reflect the requirement in
23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(A) that the TIP include
projects covering four years. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
With minor citation changes, existing Sec. 450.332(d) and (e)
would be redesignated in proposed Sec. 450.330 paragraphs (d) and (e),
respectively.
The FHWA and the FTA invite comments on whether MPOs should be
required to prepare an ``agreed to'' list of projects at the beginning
of each of the four years in the TIP, rather than only the first year.
The FHWA and the FTA also invite comments on whether a TIP amendment
should be required to move a project between years in the TIP, if an ``agreed to'' list is
required for each year.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) In metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later
than 90 calendar days following the end of the State 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)(1) 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.
450.324(e)(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.
Post and view comments on this section
This new proposed section addresses the requirements of the TEA-21
and 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(7)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(B) for the
development of an annual listing of projects (including investments in
pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities) for which funds under 23
U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program
year in MPAs.
Proposed paragraph (a) re-states the language in 23 U.S.C.
134(j)(7)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(B) that the annual listing shall
be cooperatively developed by the State(s), public transportation
operator(s), and the MPO, in accordance with Sec. 450.314(a) and
specifies the timetable for publication of the annual listing.
Proposed paragraph (b) specifies that the information contained in
the annual listing of obligated projects be consistent with the
information contained in the TIP and specifies the information to be
included.
Proposed paragraph (c) states that the annual listing of obligated
projects shall be published or otherwise made available by the MPO in
accordance with the participation plan's criteria related to the TIP.
Post and view comments on this section
(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 four 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), 49 CFR part 21, and 23 CFR part 230;
(4) Section 1101(b) of the SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59) and 49 CFR
part 26 regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises
in USDOT funded projects;
(5) 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;
(6) 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;
(7) Section 324 of title 23, U.S.C., regarding the prohibition of
discrimination based on gender; and
(8) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794)
and 49 CFR part 35 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 four 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 a TIP
has been approved by the MPO and the Governor, jointly certify the
transportation planning process;
(ii) If the process substantially meets the requirements of this
part and a TIP has been approved by the MPO and the Governor, 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 four 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 MPO(s), the State(s), and public transportation operator(s)
shall be notified of the actions taken under paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(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.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.334 would be revised, re-titled, and retained as
Sec. 450.334. Proposed paragraph (a) would revise existing Sec.
450.334(a) to align the transmittals of the State/MPO self-
certifications and the TIP to the FHWA and the FTA, thereby reflecting
the language in 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(1)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(1)(D) that
requires TIPs to be updated at least once every four years. In
addition, proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) would articulate
the existing legislative and regulatory authorities to be included in
the State/MPO self-certification, including three additional Federal
requirements (1) the Older Americans Act, (2) 23 U.S.C. 324 regarding
the prohibition of discrimination based on gender, and (3) section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 regarding discrimination against
individuals with disabilities). These requirements previously existed
and the regulations would be revised to include them.
Proposed paragraph (b) would combine and revise the content of
existing Sec. 450.334(b) through (h), based largely on language in 23
U.S.C. 134(k)(5) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(5) that describes TMA
certification. In addition, proposed paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through
(b)(1)(iii) describe specific FHWA/FTA options on TMA certification.
Post and view comments on this section
Any decision by the FHWA and the FTA concerning a metropolitan
transportation plan or TIP developed through the processes provided for
in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 shall not be considered to be a
Federal action subject to review under NEPA.
This new proposed section includes the provisions of the TEA-21 and
23 U.S.C. 134(p) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(p) that any decisions by the FHWA
and the FTA regarding the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP
are not Federal actions subject to the provisions of NEPA.
Post and view comments on this section
(a) Prior to July 1, 2007, metropolitan transportation plans and
TIPs under development since August 10, 2005, may be completed under
TEA-21 requirements. Metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs may
also reflect the provisions of this part prior to July 1, 2007, but
cannot take advantage of the extended update cycles (e.g., four years
for TIPs and four years for metropolitan transportation plans in
nonattainment and maintenance areas) until all provisions and
requirements of this part are reflected in the metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP.
(b) For metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs that are
developed under TEA-21 requirements prior to July 1, 2007, the FHWA/FTA
action (i.e., conformity determinations and STIP approvals) must be
completed no later than June 30, 2007. For metropolitan transportation
plans in attainment areas that are developed under TEA-21 requirements
prior to July 1, 2007, the MPO adoption action must be completed no
later than June 30, 2007. If these actions are completed on or after
July 1, 2007, the provisions and requirements of this part shall take
effect, regardless of when the metropolitan transportation plan or TIP
were developed.
(c) In addition, the applicable action (see paragraph (b) of this
section) on any amendments or updates to metropolitan transportation
plans and TIPs on or after July 1, 2007, shall address the provisions
and requirements of this part.
(d) For new TMAs, the congestion management process described in
Sec. 450.320 shall be implemented within 18 months of the designation
of a new TMA.
Post and view comments on this section
Existing Sec. 450.336 would be revised and redesignated as Sec.
450.338. Proposed paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) include the requirements
in Sections 3005(b) and 6001(b) of the SAFETEA-LU that State and MPO
transportation plans and programs adopted on or after July 1, 2007,
shall reflect the provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 as
amended by the SAFETEA-LU. In addition, this proposed section clarifies
that all State, MPO, and FHWA/FTA actions on metropolitan
transportation plans and programs taken on or after July 1, 2007 (i.e.,
updates and amendments) are subject to the provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134
and 49 U.S.C. 5303 as amended by the SAFETEA-LU and these proposed
rules. Provisions for early accommodation of SAFETEA-LU requirements,
as well as its revised update cycles are described in this section.
Proposed paragraph (d) would establish that the congestion
management process for newly designated TMAs shall be implemented
within 18 months of the designation of the TMA. This requirement is
consistent with previous joint guidance provided by the FHWA and the
FTA entitled ``Frequently Asked Questions on Applying 2000 Census Data
to Urbanized and Urban Areas''.