Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning, 33510-33560 [06-5145]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• Federal Transit Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33510-33560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5145]



[[Page 33509]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Highway Administration



23 CFR Parts 450 and 500



Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 613



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



Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation 
Planning; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 2006 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 33510]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 450 and 500

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 613

[Docket No. FHWA-2005-22986]
FHWA RIN 2125-AF09; FTA RIN 2132-AA82


Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation 
Planning

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

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

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA and the FTA are jointly issuing this document which 
proposes the revision of regulations governing the development of 
metropolitan transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas, 
State transportation plans and programs and the regulations for 
Congestion Management Systems and invites public comment. This proposed 
revision results from the recent passage of the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users 
(SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, August 10, 2005), which also incorporates 
changes initiated in its predecessor legislation, the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 
1998) and generally would make the regulations consistent with current 
statutory requirements. Interested parties are invited to send comments 
regarding all facets of this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, submit electronically at https://
dms.dot.gov or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. Alternatively, comments 
may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. All comments should include the docket number that 
appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be 
available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. 
to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 
desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgement page that 
appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to 
search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our 
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). Persons making comments may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 53, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or may visit 
https://dms.dot.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the FHWA: Mr. Larry D. Anderson, 
Planning Oversight and Stewardship Team (HEPP-10), (202) 366-2374, Mr. 
Robert Ritter, Planning Capacity Building Team (HEPP-20), (202) 493-
2139, or Ms. Diane Liff, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-10), (202) 
366-6203. For the FTA: Mr. Charles Goodman, Office of Planning and 
Environment, (202) 366-1944, Ms. Carolyn Mulvihill, Office of Planning 
and Environment, (202) 366-2258, or Mr. Christopher VanWyk, Office of 
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1733. Both agencies are located at 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 
4:15 p.m for FHWA, and 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. for FTA, Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    Interested parties may submit or retrieve comments online through 
the Docket Management System (DMS) at https://dms.dot.gov. The DMS Web 
site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Follow the 
instructions online. Additional assistance is available at the help 
section of the Web site.
    An electronic copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking may be 
downloaded using the Office of the Federal Register's Web page at: 
https://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page 
at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/.

Background

Statement of the Problem

    The joint FHWA/FTA rules governing statewide and metropolitan 
transportation planning have remained unchanged since the agencies 
originally promulgated these rules on October 28, 1993 (58 FR 58064) in 
response to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, December 18, 1991). Two statutory 
changes--the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU--have occurred in the 
intervening years. The FHWA and the FTA, State Departments of 
Transportations (DOTs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), 
public transportation operators and the transportation community at 
large have evolved, and technology has improved. The proposed revisions 
would recognize the changes that have occurred in the last 12 years and 
bring the regulation up to date. We invite comments on all aspects of 
the proposed regulation, including the clarity of its requirements and 
any anticipated operational issues.
    The existing rules have not been revised or amended since issuance 
in 1993, with two exceptions: The temporary waiver of certain 
metropolitan transportation planning and transportation conformity 
requirements for the New York City metropolitan area in response to the 
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (67 FR 62373, October 7, 2002), 
which has ended, and the requirement for States to establish, 
implement, and periodically review and revise a documented consultation 
process(es) with non-metropolitan local officials (68 FR 3181, January 
23, 2003). The proposed regulations would not change the requirements 
related to State consultation with non-metropolitan local officials.
    Section 1308 of the TEA-21 required the Secretary to eliminate the 
major investment study set forth in Section 450.318 of title 23, Code 
of Federal Regulations, as a separate requirement, and promulgate 
regulations to integrate such requirement, as appropriate, as part of 
the analyses required to be undertaken pursuant to the planning 
provisions of title 23, U.S.C. and title 49, U.S.C., Chapter 53 and the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for Federal-aid 
highway and transit projects. In addition, Section 3005 of SAFETEA-LU 
requires the Secretary to issue regulations setting standards for the 
Annual Listing of Projects required in 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(7)(B) and 49 
U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(B) as amended by SAFETEA-LU. The proposed regulations 
are intended to satisfy these requirements.

History

    SAFETEA-LU. Section 6001 of the SAFETEA-LU amended 23 U.S.C. 134 
and 135, to require a continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated 
transportation planning and programming process in metropolitan areas 
and States. Similar changes were made to 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306 by 
sections 3005, 3006 and 3007 of the SAFETEA-LU, which address the

[[Page 33511]]

metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes in the 
context of the FTA's responsibilities. Section 1308 of TEA-21, which 
requires the Secretary of Transportation to eliminate the major 
investment study as a separate requirement and, as appropriate, 
integrate the requirement into the transportation planning and National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, was not changed by the 
SAFETEA-LU and remains in effect.
    Prior Rulemaking. On May 25, 2000, the FHWA and the FTA jointly 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 33922) proposing amendments to the existing 
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning regulations 23 CFR 
part 450 and 49 CFR part 613. Concurrently, the FHWA and the FTA 
jointly proposed to redesignate and amend existing regulations to 
further emphasize using the NEPA process to facilitate effective and 
timely transportation planning decisionmaking (65 FR 33959, May 25, 
2000). The metropolitan and statewide transportation planning and NEPA 
NPRMs were issued concurrently to further the goal of the FTA and the 
FHWA to better coordinate the planning processes with project 
development activities and decisions associated with the NEPA process. 
On July 7, 2000 (65 FR 41891), a supplemental notice was published to 
extend the comment period on both NPRMs until September 23, 2000.
    More than 400 documents (representing slightly more than 300 
discrete comments) were submitted to that docket, distributed 
relatively equally among three primary sources: State DOTs, MPOs, and 
various other transportation stakeholder groups.
    During the comment period, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 
and Public Works and the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure held hearings regarding the NPRMs on September 12 and 
13, 2000, respectively, focused on the intent of TEA-21 and possible 
burdens on State DOTs and MPOs that would not, it was asserted, result 
in increased efficiency and effectiveness of the planning or project 
development processes.
    In response to the number, extent, and nature of the concerns, as 
well as in anticipation of further imminent statutory guidance 
(although, as it turned out, the SAFETEA-LU would not be enacted until 
2005), the FHWA and FTA issued a notice in the September 20, 2002, 
Federal Register (67 FR 59219) withdrawing the NPRM.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The FHWA and the FTA proceeded with a separate rulemaking 
effort to address the issue of State consultation with non-
metropolitan local officials. A final rule on that issue was 
published January 23, 2003 (68 FR 3181).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the years since the May 2000 NPRM, transportation planning has 
continued to evolve. For example, the 2000 census identified increased 
urbanization, requiring the designation of additional metropolitan 
areas and establishment of additional MPOs and new Transportation 
Management Areas (TMAs). The TEA-21 provided increased funds for 
transportation planning. Improved technologies such as Geographic 
Information Systems (GIS), the proliferation of Internet use, and 
improved data collection and processing have allowed planners to 
analyze more data and provide new ways to share information. New 
partners, such as freight carriers and shippers, are engaged in the 
process. The nation increasingly competes in a global economy, with 
greater emphasis on the need to move freight efficiently, and a greater 
recognition for the need to maximize the use and efficiency of the 
existing transportation system. The planning regulations need to be 
updated to respond to these and other related changes, as well as to 
the new statutory mandates of the SAFETEA-LU.

Interim Guidance

    After withdrawing the NPRM, the FHWA and the FTA developed and 
issued a number of guidance documents to provide direction to State 
DOTs, MPOs and public transportation operators in implementing the TEA-
21 statutory provisions. These are summarized below:
    On February 2, 2001, the FHWA and the FTA jointly issued 
``Implementing TEA-21 Planning Provisions'',\2\ which provided 
information on how to proceed with the TEA-21 statutory planning 
requirements, noting that ``Although new planning regulations have not 
been issued, the requirements in TEA-21 are in effect.'' Under this 
guidance, the FHWA and the FTA field offices were to work with MPOs, 
State DOTs, and transit operators ``to ensure a basic level of 
compliance with TEA-21 planning requirements, based on the statutory 
language.'' The guidance focused on the following new TEA-21 
requirements: (a) Annual listing of projects; (b) revenue estimates for 
transportation plans and TIPs; (c) State consultation with local 
officials in non-metropolitan areas; (d) consultation with transit 
users and freight shippers and service providers; (e) MIS integration; 
(f) Federal planning finding for STIP approvals; (g) consolidation of 
planning factors; and (h) public involvement during certification 
reviews. These requirements continue, some enhanced, in SAFETEA-LU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the 
following URL:https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tea21mem.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, on February 22, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA issued 
joint ``Program Guidance on Linking the Transportation Planning and 
NEPA Processes.'' \3\ This guidance, developed for use by State DOTs, 
MPOs, and public transportation operators, summarized and further 
explained provisions in current law and regulation, and provided 
direction on how information, analysis, and products from metropolitan 
and statewide transportation planning processes (pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 
134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306) could be incorporated into and relied 
upon in the NEPA process under existing Federal statutes and 
regulations. This guidance is included in this proposal as Appendix A 
to part 450. A companion legal analysis outlining authority under 
current law was also issued on February 22, 2005.\4\ Appendix A 
reiterates the statutory provision that transportation plans and 
programs are exempt from NEPA review. Development of Appendix A 
involved outreach to key national transportation planning stakeholder 
groups (American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), the Association of Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations (AMPO), the National Association of Regional Councils 
(NARC), the American of Public Transportation Association (APTA), and 
the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) as well as Federal 
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the 
following URL: https://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ ReNepa/ReNepa. nsf/
aa5aec9f63be 385c852568cc 0055ea16/ 9fd918150ac2449 
685256fb10050726c? OpenDocument.
    \4\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the 
following URL: https://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/renepa/renepa. nsf/
All+Documents/ 9FD918150AC2449685256FB10050726C /$FILE/Planning-
NEPA%20guidance,%20legal,%20 final,%202-22-05.doc or https://nepa.
fhwa.dot.gov/ renepa/renepa. nsf/All+ Documents/9FD918150AC 
2449685256FB10050726C/$FILE/ Planning-NEPA%20guidance,%20legal, 
%20final, %202- 22-05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 10, 2005, the FHWA issued a memorandum on Wetland and 
Natural Habitat Mitigation that emphasized that wetland and natural 
habitat mitigation measures, such as wetland and habitat banks or 
statewide and regional

[[Page 33512]]

conservation measures, are eligible for Federal-aid participation when 
they are undertaken to create mitigation resources for future 
transportation projects. In its memorandum, the FHWA clarified that, to 
provide for wetland or other mitigation banks, the State DOT and the 
FHWA Division Office should identify potential future wetlands and 
habitat mitigation needs for a reasonable time frame and establish a 
need for the mitigation credits. The transportation planning process 
should guide the determination of future mitigation needs. (See https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wetland/wethabmitmem.htm.) The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (the Corps) have also announced proposed revisions to 
regulations governing compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to 
wetlands, streams, and other waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act. (See 71 FR 15520 (March 28, 2006).) These 
revisions are designed to improve the effectiveness of compensatory 
mitigation at replacing lost aquatic resource functions and area, 
expand public participation in compensatory mitigation decision-making, 
and increase the efficiency and predictability of the process of 
proposing compensatory mitigation and approving new mitigation banks.
    On March 30, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA issued joint ``Guidance on 
Designation and Redesignation of MPOs.'' \5\ This guidance, designed to 
address inconsistencies that existed between 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 
5303, and 23 CFR Part 450 regarding the designation and redesignation 
of MPOs, provided clarifying information and illustrative examples of 
scenarios that do and do not trigger MPO redesignations, based on 
several actual events that transpired since the enactment of TEA-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the 
following URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/mpodes.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 12, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA jointly issued ``Planning 
Horizons for Metropolitan Long Range Transportation Plans.'' \6\ This 
guidance provided updated and clarified information on the ``planning 
horizon'' requirement for metropolitan long-range transportation plans. 
The guidance required that metropolitan long-range transportation plans 
(see 23 CFR 450.322(a)) shall address ``at least a 20-year planning 
horizon.'' Furthermore, the guidance allowed the FHWA and the FTA to 
take actions on STIPs/TIPs and associated amendments or transportation 
conformity determinations with an MPO long-range transportation plan 
initially adopted with a minimum 20-year planning horizon. However, if 
the long-range transportation plan is amended to add, delete, or 
significantly change a regionally significant project (in any 
metropolitan area), the transportation plan's horizon should be at 
least 20 years at the time of the MPO action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the 
following URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/planhorz.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA jointly issued ``Guidance on 
Fiscal Constraint for STIPs, TIPs, and Metropolitan Plans.'' \7\ This 
guidance summarized and described in detail the ISTEA and TEA-21 fiscal 
constraint requirements to ensure that transportation plans and 
programs reflect realistic assumptions on capital, operations, and 
maintenance costs associated with the surface transportation system. 
This guidance is included in this proposal as Appendix B to Part 450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the 
following URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 2, 2005, the FHWA and the FTA jointly issued ``Interim 
Guidance for Implementing Key SAFETEA-LU Provisions on Planning, 
Environment, and Air Quality for Joint FHWA/FTA Authorities.'' \8\ This 
guidance was issued after the enactment of the SAFETEA-LU to inform the 
FHWA and the FTA field offices on how to implement SAFETEA-LU 
provisions. related to transportation planning, air quality, and 
environment. This guidance established the following interim 
implementation schedule and requirements: (a) Statewide and 
metropolitan transportation plans and programs under development at the 
time of SAFETEA-LU enactment could be completed under TEA-21 
requirements and schedules; (b) transportation plans and programs 
adopted after July 1, 2007, must comply with all the SAFETEA-LU 
planning provisions; (c) States or MPOs opting to implement the 
SAFETEA-LU requirements prior to July 1, 2007, must satisfy all the 
SAFETEA-LU provisions prior to adoption of transportation plans and 
programs; and (d) FHWA/FTA certifications of Transportation Management 
Areas (TMAs) would be extended to four years (except for any existing 
``conditional'' certifications, which must be completed as previously 
scheduled).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the 
following URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/igslpja.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Development of the Proposed Regulation

    The proposed revised regulations reflect the requirements of the 
SAFETEA-LU, including requirements first mandated in the TEA-21. To 
implement these legislative mandates, we have adhered closely to the 
statutory language in drafting the regulation. Over time, and as 
necessary, the FHWA and FTA will continue to issue additional guidance 
and disseminate information on noteworthy practices.

Approach to Structure of Proposed Regulation

    While the statutory changes resulting from the SAFETEA-LU form a 
large basis for the proposed regulation, several pre-existing 
regulatory provisions not specifically mentioned in the SAFETEA-LU 
remain relevant for carry over into the new rule. The statute alone 
does not fully present all the connections between various regulatory 
provisions nor define program stewardship and oversight mechanisms. 
Oversight mechanisms such as FHWA/FTA certification reviews of TMAs and 
the FHWA/FTA planning finding to support approval of the STIP have been 
effectively used to ensure compliance and to add value for promoting 
continuous improvement in the statewide and metropolitan transportation 
planning process.
    Close adherence to the legislative mandate, described in ``Key 
Statutory Changes'' below, and further highlighted in the ``Section by 
Section Discussion,'' means that additional regulatory language was 
generally not included in the revised regulation if it expanded 
significantly on legislative language. In some cases, which will be 
noted below, other factors, such as court decisions or Presidential 
directives, required change and amplification. In these instances, 
however, we have tried to keep supplemental, non-statutory language to 
a minimum in the proposed regulations, except where clarification would 
assist compliance. In most cases, State DOTs, MPOs, transportation 
stakeholders, and the public are familiar and experienced in using 
existing practices.
    We also propose to clarify and revise the regulation's section 
headings to use plainer language, as described below. The organization 
of each section and general structure reflects, mostly unchanged, the 
existing regulation, except as indicated in the ``Section by Section 
Discussion''.
    The FHWA and FTA have conducted routine coordination/outreach 
activities with major transportation stakeholders,

[[Page 33513]]

including regular participation in national and regional conferences 
and meetings on transportation planning issues, that provided important 
insight and perspective on the transportation planning process. In 
addition to these meetings, the FHWA and the FTA met with 
transportation stakeholder organizations as appropriate to understand 
the state-of-the-practice of transportation planning and recent or 
emerging policy concerns, identify noteworthy practices, and highlight 
outstanding transportation planning initiatives. Through programs such 
as the Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program,\9\ the FHWA 
and the FTA have reached out to the transportation planning community 
to provide technical assistance and technology transfer and strengthen 
the transportation planning processes. Further, the FHWA and the FTA 
have worked with State DOTs, MPOs, and public transportation operators 
through their professional associations to discuss proposed guidance 
and statutory changes, and to implement improvements to the 
transportation planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program 
is a collaborative effort of FHWA and the FTA with various public 
and private organizations. Broadly speaking, it exists to help State 
and local transportation staff meet their complex political, social, 
economic, and environmental demands. On a practical level, the TPCB 
Program provides information, training, and technical assistance to 
help transportation professionals create plans and programs that 
respond to the needs of the many users of their local transportation 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the regulation, the knowledge we have gained 
regarding concerns and operations of our program stakeholders has 
assisted our understanding of the effect of both statute and 
regulations in a real world environment, enabled us to anticipate and 
address stakeholders' issues and concerns, and has made us attentive to 
the need to issue and administer regulations that are flexible to apply 
across the United States. For example, we propose retaining the 
existing rule language on separate and discrete State consultation 
processes with non-metropolitan local officials based on stakeholders' 
past concerns.
    These proposed rules were developed by an interagency and 
multidisciplinary task force of transportation planners, engineers and 
environmental specialists of the FHWA and the FTA, with input from 
other Federal agencies and components of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation. The task force reviewed legislation and input received 
from partners and stakeholders. In addition, comments were solicited 
from the field staffs of the FHWA and the FTA.

Key Statutory Changes

    Although substantial portions of the SAFETEA-LU sections 3005, 
3006, and 6001 mirror previous law, there are several key statutory 
changes and new requirements, summarized below:
Metropolitan Planning
    New Planning Factor: Security and safety of the transportation 
system are stand-alone planning factors, signaling an increase in 
importance from prior legislation, in which security and safety were 
coupled in the same planning factor. (23 U.S.C. 134(h)(1)(C) and 49 
U.S.C. 5303(h)(1)(C).
    Expanded Planning Factor: The TEA-21 planning factor related to 
environment was expanded to include ``promote consistency between 
transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and 
economic development patterns.'' (23 U.S.C. 134(h)(1)(E) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(h)(1)(E)).
    Metropolitan Transportation Plans: The requirement for metropolitan 
transportation plans to cover a 20-year minimum plan horizon at the 
time of adoption is maintained. The SAFETEA-LU statutorily established 
time frames for updating metropolitan transportation plans. For air 
quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, transportation plans shall 
be updated at least every four years (compared to a three-year update 
cycle in the regulations implementing ISTEA). The requirement for 
attainment area MPOs to update transportation plans at least every five 
years remains unchanged from the regulations.
    Environmental Mitigation Activities in Metropolitan Transportation 
Plans: Metropolitan transportation plans shall include a discussion of 
potential environmental mitigation activities, to be developed in 
consultation with Federal, State and Tribal wildlife, land management, 
and regulatory agencies. (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(i)(2)(B)).
    New Consultations: MPOs shall consult ``as appropriate'' with 
``State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural 
resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic 
preservation'' in developing metropolitan transportation plans (23 
U.S.C. 134(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(4)).
    Participation Plan: MPOs must develop and utilize a ``Participation 
Plan'' that provides reasonable opportunities for interested parties to 
comment on the content of the metropolitan transportation plan and 
metropolitan TIP. Further, this ``Participation Plan'' must be 
developed ``in consultation with all interested parties.'' (23 U.S.C. 
134(i)(5)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(B)).
    Congestion Management Processes in Transportation Management Areas 
(TMAs): Within a metropolitan planning area serving a TMA, there must 
be ``a process that provides for effective management and operation'' 
to address congestion management (23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3)) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(k)(3)).
    Operational and Management Strategies in Transportation Plans: 
Metropolitan transportation plans shall include operational and 
management strategies to improve the performance of the existing 
transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize 
the safety and mobility of people and goods (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(D)) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(D)).
    TIP Cycles and Scope: TIPs are to be updated at least every four 
years (compared to at least every two years in ISTEA and TEA-21). In 
addition, TIPs must include projects covering four years (compared to 
three years in ISTEA and TEA-21) (23 U.S.C. 134(j)(1)(D) and 
134(j)(2)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(1)(D) and 5303(j)(2)(A)).
    Visualization Techniques in Metropolitan Transportation Plan and 
TIP Development: As part of transportation plan and TIP development, 
MPOs shall employ visualization techniques to the maximum extent 
practicable (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(C)(ii) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(i)(5)(C)(ii)).
    Publication of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and TIP: MPOs 
shall publish or otherwise make available for public review 
transportation plans and TIPs ``including (to the maximum extent 
practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as 
the World Wide Web'' (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(6) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(6) on 
transportation plans and 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(7)(a) and 49 U.S.C. 
5303(j)(7)(a) on TIPs).
    Annual Listing of Obligated Projects: This TEA-21 requirement is 
retained, but the development of the annual listing ``shall be a 
cooperative effort of the State, transit operator, and MPO.'' For 
clarity, two new project types (investments in pedestrian walkways and 
bicycle transportation facilities) for which Federal funds have been 
obligated in the preceding year in the metropolitan planning area are 
emphasized (23 U.S.C. 134(j)(7)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(B)).
    TMA Certification Cycle: FHWA/FTA must certify each TMA planning 
process

[[Page 33514]]

at least every four years (compared to every three years in ISTEA and 
TEA-21) (23 U.S.C. 134(k)(5)(A)(ii) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(5)(A)(ii)).
    Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): State must develop a 
strategic highway safety plan that identifies and analyzes safety 
problems and opportunities in order to use Highway Safety Improvement 
Program funds for new eligible activities under 23 U.S.C. 148.
    Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan: 
Sections 3012, 3018, and 3019 of the SAFETEA-LU require that proposed 
projects under three FTA formula funding programs (Special Needs of 
Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (49 U.S.C. 
5310(d)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)); Job Access and Reverse Commute (49 U.S.C. 
5316(g)(3)(A) and (B)); and New Freedom (49 U.S.C. 5317(f)(3)(A) and 
(B)) must be derived from a locally developed public transit-human 
services transportation plan. This plan must be developed through a 
process that includes representatives of public, private, and non-
profit transportation and human services providers, as well as the 
public. And, an areawide solicitation for applications for grants under 
the latter two programs above shall be made in cooperation with the 
appropriate MPO.
Statewide Planning
    New Planning Factor: Security and safety of the transportation 
system are stand-alone planning factors, signaling an increase in 
importance from prior legislation, in which security and safety were in 
the same planning factor (23 U.S.C. 135(d)(1)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 
5304(d)(1)(C)).
    Expanded Planning Factor: The TEA-21 planning factor related to 
environment was expanded to include ``promote consistency between 
transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and 
economic development patterns'' (23 U.S.C. 135(d)(1)(E) and 49 U.S.C. 
5304(d)(1)(E)).
    Environmental Mitigation Activities in Long-Range Statewide 
Transportation Plans: Long-range statewide transportation plans shall 
include a discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities, 
to be developed in consultation with Federal, State and Tribal 
wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(4) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(4)).
    New Consultations: States shall consult ``as appropriate'' with 
``State, local, and Federally-recognized Tribal agencies responsible 
for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, 
conservation, and historic preservation'' in developing the long-range 
statewide transportation plan (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 
5304(f)(2)(D)).
    STIP Cycles and Scope: STIPs are to be updated at least every four 
years (compared to at least every two years in ISTEA and TEA-21). In 
addition, STIPs must include projects covering four years (compared to 
three years in the ISTEA and the TEA-21) (23 U.S.C. 135(g)(1) and 49 
U.S.C. 5304(g)(6)).
    Visualization Techniques in Long-Range Statewide Transportation 
Plan Development: States shall employ visualization techniques in the 
development of the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan to the 
maximum extent practicable (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(B)(ii) and 49 U.S.C. 
5304(f)(3)(B)(ii)).
    Publication of the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan: States 
shall publish or otherwise make available for public review the long-
range statewide transportation plan ``including (to the maximum extent 
practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as 
the World Wide Web'' (23 U.S.C. 135(f)(8) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(8)).
    Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): State must develop a 
strategic highway safety plan that identifies and analyzes safety 
problems and opportunities in order to use Highway Safety Improvement 
Program funds for new eligible activities under 23 U.S.C. 148.
    State Highway Safety Improvement Program Projects in the STIP: 
Projects or strategies contained in the State highway safety 
improvement program from the State strategic highway safety plan must 
be consistent with the requirements of the STIP (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(5)).
    Indian Reservation Road Projects in the STIP: ``Funds available to 
Indian tribes for Indian reservation roads shall be expended on 
projects identified in a transportation improvement program approved by 
the Secretary'' (23 U.S.C. 202).

Section-by-Section Discussion

Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions

Section 450.100 Purpose

    Existing Sec.  450.100 would be largely retained.

Section 450.102 Applicability

    Existing Sec.  450.102 would be retained without change.

Section 450.104 Definitions

    Existing Sec.  450.104 would be retained, with terms and 
definitions, as follows.
    We propose a definition for ``administrative modification'' to 
describe a type of revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan 
transportation plan, TIP or STIP that is not significant enough to 
require public review and comment, redemonstration of fiscal 
constraint, or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas). This term, along with ``amendment'' are the two 
types of ``revisions.''
    ``Alternatives analysis'' would be defined to reflect the FTA's 
Capital Investment Grant Program (49 U.S.C. 5309).
    We propose a definition for ``amendment'' to describe a type of 
revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, 
TIP, or STIP that is significant enough to require public review and 
comment, redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity 
determination (in nonattainment and maintenance areas). This term, 
along with ``administrative modification'' are the two types of 
``revisions.''
    ``Attainment area'' would be defined as reflected in the 
Transportation Conformity Reference Guide.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Transportation Conformity Reference Guide is available 
via the Internet at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/
ref_guid/coverpag.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to include ``available funds'' and ``committed funds'' 
based on the FHWA/FTA Interim Guidance on Fiscal Constraint.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Interim FHWA/FTA Guidance on Fiscal Constraint for STIPs, 
TIPs, and Metropolitan Plans (issued on June 30, 2005) available on 
the internet at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Conformity,'' and ``conformity lapse'' would be defined as 
reflected in the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
    We propose a definition for ``congestion management process'' to 
reflect the SAFETEA-LU language.
    We propose a definition for ``consideration'' to reflect a basic 
level of attention to other planning issues, as opposed to more 
substantial review under ``consultation'' and ``cooperation,'' in 
preparing transportation plans and programs.
    ``Consultation'' would remain largely unchanged, with minor 
revisions to reflect that consultation may occur between more than two 
parties.
    ``Cooperation'' would be slightly revised to reflect current 
legislation and practice.
    ``Coordinated public transit-human service transportation plan'' 
would be defined to reflect 49 U.S.C. 5316(g)(3).
    ``Coordination'' would be slightly revised to reflect current 
legislation and practice.

[[Page 33515]]

    ``Design concept'' and ``design scope'' would be defined as 
reflected in the EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.101.
    We propose to include definitions of: ``environmental mitigation 
activities,'' ``Federal land management agency,'' ``Federally funded 
non-emergency transportation services,'' ``financially constrained'' or 
``fiscal constraint,'' ``financial plan,'' and ``freight shippers''.
    The definition of ``Governor'' would be retained.
    ``Illustrative project'' would be added to reflect new legislative 
provisions from the TEA-21 and 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C) and 135(f)(5) and 
49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(C) and 5304(f)(5).
    ``Indian Tribal government'' would be added based on the Federally 
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a-1).
    ``Intelligent transportation systems (ITS)'' would be added to 
reflect new legislative provisions from the TEA-21 and 23 U.S.C. 
134(h)(1)(A) and 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(A) and 49 
U.S.C. 5309(e)(10)(B).
    We propose to include definitions of: ``interim metropolitan 
transportation plan'' and ``interim transportation improvement 
program''.
    ``Long-range statewide transportation'' would be slightly revised 
and renamed from the former ``statewide transportation plan'' to 
reflect new statutory language from 23 U.S.C. 135(f) and 49 U.S.C. 
5304(f).
    ``Maintenance area'' would be revised to reflect the EPA definition 
used in the conformity regulation at 40 CFR part 93.101.
    ``Major metropolitan transportation investment'' would be removed 
to reflect the legislative provision from Section 1308 of the TEA-21.
    ``Management system'' would be retained in consideration of their 
extensive use by States, although the requirement for maintaining them 
was eliminated by legislative changes in the National Highway System 
Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59; November 28, 1995).
    ``Metropolitan planning area'' (MPA) and ``metropolitan planning 
organization'' (MPO) would be revised to reflect legislative changes in 
23 U.S.C. 134(b) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(b). Importantly, the term ``MPO'' 
refers to the policy board for the organization that is designated 
under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
    ``Metropolitan transportation plan'' would remain unchanged, except 
for legislative references.
    ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' would be defined, using 
legislative language from the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq).
    ``Nonattainment area'' would remain unchanged, except for 
legislative references.
    ``Non-metropolitan area'' and ``non-metropolitan local official'' 
would remain unchanged.
    A definition is proposed for ``operational and management 
strategies'' to reflect the legislative policy directions from the 
SAFETEA-LU.
    We propose to add definitions for the terms ``obligated projects,'' 
and ``project selection''.
    ``Provider of freight transportation services'' would be added as 
described for freight-related industries in the Transportation 
Warehousing Sector 48-49 of the North American Industrial 
Classification System.
    We propose to add a definition for ``regional ITS architecture,'' 
as set forth in the National ITS Architecture Consistency Policy for 
Transit Projects (Number C-01-03) and FHWA regulations on ITS 
architecture and standards (23 CFR parts 655 and 940).
    The definition of ``regionally significant project'' would be 
retained, with some clarifying revisions.
    We propose a definition for ``Regional Transit Security Strategy'' 
that is aligned with the concept required by the Department of Homeland 
Security.
    We propose a definition for ``revision'' that describes a change to 
a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or 
STIP that occurs between scheduled periodic updates. A revision may or 
may not be significant. A significant revision is defined as an 
``amendment'' (see above), while a non-significant revision is defined 
as an ``administrative modification'' (see above).
    ``State'' would be unchanged.
    The definition of ``State implementation plan'' would be retained, 
with some clarifying revisions.
    ``Statewide transportation improvement program'' would be 
unchanged.
    ``Strategic highway safety plan'' would be defined consistent with 
23 U.S.C. 148(b)(6), as amended by the SAFETEA-LU.
    ``Transportation control measure'' would be defined, as reflected 
in U.S. EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93.101.
    ``Transportation improvement program'' would be revised slightly.
    ``Transportation management area'' (TMA) would be slightly changed, 
particularly to change the provision in which the TMA designation 
formerly applied to the entire metropolitan planning area(s).
    ``Unified planning work program'' would be defined.
    We propose a definition for ``update'' that applies to a complete 
change to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, 
TIP, or STIP that occurs on a regular schedule as prescribed by Federal 
statute. Updates always require public review and comment, 
demonstration of fiscal constraint (except for long-range statewide 
transportation plans), and a conformity determination (in nonattainment 
and maintenance areas).
    ``Urbanized area'' would be defined, consistent with recent 
statutory changes in 23 U.S.C. 134(b).
    We propose to add definitions for the terms ``users of public 
transportation'' and ``visualization techniques.''

Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming

Section 450.200 Purpose

    The statement of purpose in Sec.  450.200 would be slightly revised 
to better reflect the policy statement contained in 23 U.S.C. 135 and 
49 U.S.C. 5304. The proposed revision would support strengthened 
linkages between statewide and metropolitan transportation planning, 
and include a specific reference to ``accessible pedestrian walkways 
and bicycle facilities.''

Section 450.202 Applicability

    Existing Sec.  450.202 would be revised to specifically include 
MPOs and public transportation operators within the statewide 
transportation planning process and to add 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 
5304 as a statutory citation.

Section 450.204 Definitions

    Existing Sec.  450.204 would remain the same, except for the 
addition of 49 U.S.C. 5302 as a statutory citation.

Section 450.206 Scope of the Statewide Transportation Planning Process

    For purposes of simplification, a majority of the content of 
existing Sec.  450.206 would be removed or relocated to other sections 
due to outdated or redundant information and the section would be re-
titled. Proposed Sec.  450.206(a) would revise the content in existing 
Sec.  450.208(a) by replacing the ISTEA planning factors with the eight 
planning factors in 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(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.''

[[Page 33516]]

    In Sec.  450.206(b) we propose to provide general information on 
the use of and application of the eight planning factors throughout the 
statewide transportation planning process.
    In paragraph (c) what we propose is consistent with the language in 
23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2) that the failure to 
consider any of the factors shall not be reviewable by any court in any 
matter affecting a long-range statewide transportation plan, Statewide 
transportation improvement program (STIP), or FHWA/FTA planning process 
findings.
    In paragraph (d) we propose to re-locate and revise the information 
and statutory references in existing Sec.  450.218 (Funding). In 
addition, this proposed paragraph would establish the statewide 
planning work program required by 23 CFR part 420 (for funds under 23 
U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C.) as the primary tool to discuss the planning 
priorities of the State.

Section 450.208 Coordination of Planning Process Activities

    Existing Sec.  450.210 would be redesignated as Sec.  450.208. 
Paragraph (a) would be revised to focus on required planning 
coordination efforts as defined in 23 U.S.C. 135(b)(1) and 135(e) and 
49 U.S.C. 5304(b)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(e) to reflect the 
simplification of language provided by the change in planning factors.
    A new paragraph (b) is proposed to address the 23 U.S.C. 135(b)(2) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(b)(2) requirement for the statewide transportation 
planning process to be coordinated with air quality planning conducted 
by State air quality agencies in the development of the transportation 
portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
    A new paragraph (c) is proposed to reflect the 23 U.S.C. 135(c)(1) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(c)(1) provision allowing two or more States to enter 
into agreements or compacts for cooperative efforts and mutual 
assistance regarding multi-State transportation planning activities. 
This paragraph would note that the U.S. Congress reserves the right to 
alter, amend, or repeal interstate compacts entered into under this 
part.
    Paragraph (d) would retain existing rule language providing States 
the option to use any one or more of the management systems (in whole 
or in part) under 23 CFR part 500 for purposes of carrying out the 
statewide transportation planning process.
    Paragraph (e) is proposed to encourage States to apply asset 
management principles and techniques in establishing planning goals, 
defining STIP priorities, and assessing transportation investment 
decisions to include transportation system safety, operations, 
preservation, and maintenance.
    Paragraph (f) is proposed to ensure that statewide transportation 
planning processes are carried out in a manner consistent with regional 
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) architectures in 23 CFR part 
940 (based on the ITS consistency requirement in 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 Public 
Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 
5310, 5316, and 5317.
    Paragraph (h) is proposed to promote consistency between the 
statewide transportation planning process and the Strategic Highway 
Safety Plan, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 148, as well as with the 
Regional Transit Security Strategy, as required by the Department of 
Homeland Security.

Section 450.210 Interested Parties, Public Involvement, and 
Consultation

    Existing Sec.  450.212 would be revised, re-titled, and 
redesignated as Sec.  450.210. Overall, existing Sec.  450.212 (Public 
Involvement) would be broadened to focus on all facets of participation 
and consultation in the statewide transportation planning process, 
including the involvement of ``interested parties'' (as defined by 23 
U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(A)) and State consultation 
with non-metropolitan local officials, Indian Tribal governments, and 
the Secretary of the Interior. See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.
    Proposed paragraph (a) would continue the requirement for State 
public involvement processes that include the ``interested parties'' 
defined under 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(A). 
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ix) provides for periodic State evaluation of 
its public involvement procedures. The FHWA and the FTA believe that 
the periodic assessment of such processes, including the voluntary 
development and use of public involvement process performance criteria, 
can help to determine that the effort is well spent and help adjust and 
respond to changes over time.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require States to provide for 
public comment on existing and proposed procedures for public 
involvement in the development of the long-range statewide 
transportation plan and the STIP, allowing at least 45 days for public 
review and written comment before the procedures and any amendment to 
existing procedures are adopted.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would retain the content in current Sec.  
450.212(h) regarding State development of a documented process(es) that 
is separate and discrete from the State's public involvement process 
for consulting with non-metropolitan local officials representing units 
of general purpose local government and/or local officials responsible 
for transportation. In addition, proposed paragraph (b)(1) would retain 
the content in existing Sec.  450.212(i) on the periodic review (at 
least once every five years) of the effectiveness of the consultation 
process(es), including the solicitation of comments (for a period of at 
least 60 days) from non-metropolitan local officials and other 
interested parties, and the consideration of these comments by the 
State in modifying the process(es). Per the existing regulation, the 
five year review cycle begins February 24, 2006. The existing 
regulation allowed one year to implement the consultation process after 
the regulation was published (68 FR 3181, January 23, 2003), 
established an initial review after two years, and every five years 
thereafter.
    Proposed paragraph (c) focuses on State consultation with Indian 
Tribal governments and the Secretary of Interior in the development of 
the long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP, reflecting 
the language and intent articulated in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(C) and 
135(g)(2)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2)( C) and 5304(g)(2)( C). This 
proposed paragraph also encourages States, as appropriate, to develop a 
documented process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key 
decision points for consulting with Indian Tribal governments and 
Federal land management agencies in the development of the long-range 
statewide transportation plan and the STIP. The FHWA and the FTA 
believe that a documented process(es) would provide for greater 
understanding between States and Indian Tribal governments and Federal 
land management agencies on how this consultation would occur. The FHWA 
and the FTA recognize an obligation and requirement for Federal 
government consultation with Indian Tribes, in addition to State 
consultation with Tribes.

[[Page 33517]]

Section 450.212 Transportation Planning Studies and Project Development

    Section 1308 of the TEA-21 eliminated the major MIS as a separate 
requirement and called for 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 the NEPA 
regulations.
    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.'' \12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This guidance document is available via the Internet at 
https://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/
aa5aec9f63be385c852568cc0055ea16/9fd918150ac2449685256fb10050726c? 
OpenDocument and is included as Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  450.212 is structured around the guiding principles 
and legal opinion reflected in the program guidance.

Section 450.214 Development and Content of the Long-range Statewide 
Transportation Plan

    Existing Sec.  450.214 would be re-titled. Consistent with existing 
Sec.  450.214, proposed Sec.  450.214 would maintain the opportunity 
for the long-range statewide transportation plan to be comprised of 
policies and/or strategies, not necessarily specific projects, over the 
minimum 20-year forecast period. In addition, proposed paragraph (n) 
would retain State discretion to identify a periodic schedule for 
updating the long-range statewide transportation plan and 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 Sec.  450.214 also would be revised to reflect key 
provisions in 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(1)(G) and 135(d)(1)(H) and 49 U.S.C. 
5304(d)(1)(G) and 5304(d)(1)(H). Proposed paragraph (b) calls for the 
long-range statewide transportation plan to include capital, 
operations, and management strategies, investments, procedures, and 
other measures to ensure the preservation of the existing 
transportation system.
    The FHWA and the FTA believe improved planning for the operations 
and management of the Nation's transportation system is vitally 
important to continuing to deliver the safety, reliability, and 
mobility for people and freight in the 21st century that the nation 
expects. Operations and management (or management and operations) is a 
coordinated approach to optimizing the performance of existing 
infrastructure and building operational capacity into new projects 
through the implementation of multimodal, intermodal, and often cross-
jurisdictional systems, services, and projects. To be effective, 
management and operations must be 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, such as traffic detection and surveillance, work 
zone management, emergency management, and traveler information 
services. It also refers to strategies that address the economically 
critical area of goods movement, such as improving intermodal 
connections and designing and operating key elements of the 
transportation system to accommodate the patterns and dynamics of 
freight operations. Such strategies enhance reliability and goods 
movement efficiency; improve public safety and security; support 
homeland security and safeguard the personal security; reduce traveler 
delays associated with incidents and other events; and improve 
information for businesses and for the traveling public.
    In order to draw a strong link between the Strategic Highway Safety 
Planning process described in 23 U.S.C. 148 and the statewide 
transportation planning process, proposed paragraph (d) states that the 
long-range statewide transportation plan should include a safety 
element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, 
countermeasures, or projects contained in the Strategic Highway Safety 
Plan (SHSP). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above, on the SHSP 
requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (i) requires that the long-range statewide 
transportation plan be developed, as appropriate, with State, Tribal, 
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 Tribal inventories or plans/maps of natural and historic resources 
as mandated in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2)(D).
    While the title of 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(D) and 49 U.S.C. 
5304(f)(2)(D) is ``Consultation, Comparison and Consideration,'' it is 
important to note that the consultation referenced in the statute is 
different from the definition of consultation in the existing or 
proposed regulation. The statute specifically defines ``consultation'' 
in this section as involving ``comparison of transportation plans to 
State and Tribal conservation plans or maps, if available, and 
comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or 
historic resources, if available.''
    Proposed paragraph (j) requires that the long-range statewide 
transportation plan contain a discussion of potential environmental 
mitigation activities (at the policy and/or strategic-levels, not 
project-specific). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above. In developing 
this discussion in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land 
management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies, this proposed paragraph 
allows States to establish reasonable timeframes for performing this 
consultation.
    Proposed paragraph (k) identifies the ``interested parties'' 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(A) that must 
be provided a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed long-
range statewide transportation plan.
    Proposed paragraph (l) would implement a provision, added by TEA-21 
and retained in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(5) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(5), for an 
optional financial plan to be developed to support the long-range 
statewide transportation plan. Another provision added by the TEA-21, 
retained by 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(5) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(5), and reflected 
in proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) 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.
    Also reflecting language in 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(B)(iii) and 49 
U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(B)(iii), proposed paragraph (n) would require the 
State to publish or otherwise make available the long-range statewide 
transportation plan in electronically accessible formats and means 
(such as the World Wide Web). See ``Key Statutory Changes'' above.

[[Page 33518]]

Section 450.216 Development and Content of the Statewide Transportation 
Improvement Program (STIP)

    Existing Sec.  450.216 would be re-titled. Except for some 
restructuring and reorganization, much of the content of existing Sec.  
450.216 would remain intact.
    Substantive changes reflected in proposed Sec.  450.216 reflect key 
legislative and statutory changes resulting from the TEA-21 and the 
SAFETEA-LU. Proposed paragraph (a) requires that the STIP cover a 
period of at least four years and be updated at least every four years. 
Proposed paragraph (e) would require, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204(a) or 
(j), that Federal Lands Highway program TIPs be included without 
modification in the STIP (directly or by reference) once approved by 
the FHWA.
    Proposed paragraph (l) would implement a provision, included in the 
TEA-21 and retained in 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4)(F) and 49 U.S.C. 
5304(g)(4)(F), that a financial plan may be developed to support the 
STIP. Proposed paragraph (l) would be consistent with the FHWA/FTA 
Interim Guidance on Fiscal Constraint that was issued on June 30, 
2005,\13\ and is included in Appendix B. Another provision in paragraph 
(l) that was prompted by TEA-21 and retained in 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4)(F) 
and 49 U.S.C. 5304(g)(4)(F), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This joint guidance is available via the Internet at the 
following URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (m) also would retain the provision in existing 
Sec.  450.216(a)(5) that projects included in the first two years of 
the STIP in nonattainment and maintenance areas shall be limited to 
those for which funds are available or committed. The FHWA and the FTA 
believe that retaining this provision is critical to realistic, 
meaningful planning and public involvement.
    The FHWA and the FTA invite comments on whether the agencies should 
require States submitting STIP amendments to demonstrate that funds are 
``available or committed'' for projects identified in the STIP in the 
year the STIP amendment is submitted and the following year.
    Proposed paragraph (o) would allow projects in the first four of 
years of the STIP to be advanced in place of another project in the 
first four years of the STIP, subject to the project selection 
requirements of Sec.  450.220. In addition, proposed paragraph (o) 
recognizes State discretion to revise the STIP under procedures agreed 
to by the State, the MPOs and the public transportation operators. The 
FHWA and the FTA recognize that changes to transportation programs 
between formal update cycles may be necessary. We have proposed 
definitions for the terms ``administrative modification,'' 
``amendment,'' and ``revision'' to clarify these actions.

Section 450.218 Self-certification, Federal Findings, and Federal 
Approvals

    Existing Sec.  450.220 would be re-titled and redesignated as Sec.  
450.218. Proposed paragraph (a)