Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning, 7224-7286 [07-493]

Agencies

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

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 14, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7224-7286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-493]



[[Page 7223]]

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

Part III





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; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 7224]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 450 and 500

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 613

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


Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation 
Planning

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the 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. The revision results 
from the 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 will 
make the regulations consistent with current statutory requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 2007.

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, Mr. Darin Allan, Office of Planning and 
Environment, (202) 366-6694, 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 access all comments on the NPRM received by 
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 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 final rule 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

    The regulations found at 23 CFR 450 and 500 and 49 CFR 613 outline 
the requirements for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and public transportation 
operators to conduct a continuing, comprehensive and coordinated 
transportation planning and programming process in metropolitan areas 
and States. These regulations have not been comprehensively updated or 
revised since October 28, 1993. Since that time, Congress has enacted 
several laws that affect the requirements outlined in these regulations 
(e.g. such as the TEA-21 and the SAFETEA-LU). Therefore, the agencies 
needed to update these regulations to be consistent with current 
statutory requirements.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

    On June 9, 2006, the agencies published, in the Federal Register, a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to revise the 
regulations governing the development of statewide and metropolitan 
transportation plans and programs and the regulations for Congestion 
Management Systems (71 FR 33510). The comment period remained open 
until September 7, 2006. During the comment period on the proposed 
rule, the FTA and the FHWA held six public outreach workshops and a 
national telecast, also available on the World Wide Web. Those meetings 
provided an opportunity for FTA and FHWA to provide an overview of the 
NPRM and offer clarification of selected provisions. Comments were not 
solicited at those meetings, and attendees were encouraged to submit 
all comments to the official docket. A summary of the issues raised at 
the meetings and the general response of the FTA and the FHWA 
presenters, along with copies of the materials presented at the 
meeting, is included in the docket (item Number 27).
    In addition, the FHWA and the FTA responded to requests for 
presentations at several regularly scheduled meetings or conferences of 
national and regional professional, industry or advocacy organizations 
during the comment period of the NPRM.

Discussion of Comments

    In response to the NPRM, we received over 150 documents 
(representing more than 1,600 comments) submitted to the docket as 
reflected in the summary below (and spreadsheet on file in the docket). 
The following discussion summarizes our response. We received diverse 
and even opposing comments. General comments concerning the rule are 
addressed initially, followed by specific responses to individual 
sections of the regulatory proposals.
    We categorized the comments received by the type of organization 
that submitted the comments. The following categories are used 
throughout this discussion: State DOTs; MPOs, councils of government 
(COGs) and regional planning agencies; national and regional 
professional, industry or advocacy organization (which includes 
organizations representing State DOTs, MPOs, COGs or other agencies 
whose individual comments may be included in a different category), 
local/regional transit agency; general public; city/county (other sub-
State government); State (other agency, Governor, Legislator); Federal 
agency and other.
    State DOTs submitted almost one-quarter of the documents, which 
account for almost one-third of all comments. MPOs, COGs and regional 
planning agencies submitted slightly more than one-third of the 
documents, also accounting for approximately one-third of the comments. 
National and regional professional, industry or advocacy organizations 
submitted over one-quarter of the documents and approximately one-
quarter of the comments. Local/regional transit agencies submitted 
approximately 5 percent of the documents. Other organizations or 
individuals submitted the remainder. Most State DOTs and some other 
commenters wrote in support of the comments submitted by the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 
Many MPOs and COGs and some other commenters wrote in support of the 
comments submitted by the Association of Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations (AMPO) and/or the National Association of Regional 
Councils (NARC). Several public transportation operators and others 
wrote in support of the comments submitted by the American Public 
Transportation Association (APTA).
    The FHWA and the FTA received comments on almost all sections of 
the

[[Page 7225]]

rule. The largest number of individual comments we received were on 
fiscal constraint issues. Other sections with more than five percent of 
the overall comments included: Sec.  450.104 (Definitions), Sec.  
450.216 (Development and content of the statewide transportation 
improvement program (STIP)), Sec.  450.322 (Development and content of 
the metropolitan transportation plan), and Sec.  450.324 (Development 
and content of the transportation improvement program).
    Several national and regional advocacy organizations, a few State 
DOTs and MPOs, some transit agencies and others suggested changes that 
go beyond what is required by statute. The FHWA and the FTA have 
adhered closely to the statutory language in drafting the regulation. 
Over time, and as necessary, the FHWA and the FTA will continue to 
issue additional guidance and disseminate information on noteworthy 
practices that may address these suggestions.
    In response to several comments, specific regulatory reference to a 
Regional Transit Security Strategy (RTSS), including its definition, 
was removed due to the concern for possible disclosure of security-
sensitive information in the planning process. Further, an RTSS is not 
required universally of all metropolitan areas and States. Regulatory 
language in both the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning 
sections was revised to make broad reference to the need for 
coordination with ``appropriate'' transit security-related plans, 
programs, and decision-making processes.
    One national and regional professional, industry or advocacy 
organization suggested the incorporation of the Real Time System 
Management Information Program (required by Sec.  1201 of the SAFETEA-
LU) into the statewide transportation planning process. While the FHWA 
and the FTA agree that current, good quality data can improve effective 
transportation decisions and is key to effective operation and 
management strategies, we recognize each State's need to determine 
their appropriate statewide coordinated data collection program to 
support their individual planning process. We encourage the States to 
consider including real-time data, provided by the Real Time System 
Management Information Program, but have not included a requirement in 
this rule.
    The FHWA and the FTA were asked to evaluate whether the leadership 
posts on MPO boards were acting in an impartial manner. A few 
organizations expressed concern that non-metropolitan or non-elected 
officials who serve as board chairs may have conflicts of interest that 
undermine local control of transportation funding. The FHWA and the FTA 
will consider conducting such a study as part of their discretionary 
research programs. Currently, we do not have enough information on this 
subject for incorporation into this rule.
    Several documents providing research, data, and analysis on various 
issues related to transportation, planning and environment were 
submitted to the docket. The FHWA and the FTA have reviewed these 
documents and considered the information in developing this rule.
    The FHWA and the FTA were asked to recognize regional planning 
organizations/regional transportation planning organizations (RPOs/
RTPOs) throughout the rule as stakeholders and interested parties in 
the transportation planning process in States where they are 
established by law. Although the rule is silent on RPOs/RTPOs, Sec.  
450.208(a)(6) highlights that statewide transportation planning needs 
to coordinate with related planning activities being conducted outside 
of metropolitan planning areas. The FHWA and the FTA recognize that the 
RPO/RTPO planning process and activities should be input into the 
statewide transportation planning process. Further, many of the RPOs/
RTPOs are recognized as forms of local government, and are addressed in 
Sec.  420.210 (Interested parties, public involvement and 
consultation).
    A few commenters observed that many small MPOs have very little 
funding from USDOT or non-USDOT sources, have very limited staffs, and 
limited consultant or technical support resources of their own. The 
FHWA and the FTA were urged to find ways to scale the regulatory 
requirements to fit the size and scope of smaller MPOs. We noted this 
comment and have tried to provide as much flexibility in the rule as 
practicable. We have provided some streamlined requirements for the 
non-transportation management area (TMA) MPOs, such as Simplified 
Statement of Work and grouping of projects within the transportation 
improvement program (TIP). The MPO is responsible for developing a 
planning process that is appropriate for its communities, given the 
resources and technical capability of the MPO.
    Several State DOTs and a national and regional advocacy 
organization objected to including guidance documents with the 
regulations as Appendices A and B. These commenters noted that by 
including these documents with the regulation as appendices, the 
guidance documents would have the force and effect of law and, as a 
result, would ``open up FHWA and FTA (and thus the States and MPOs) to 
litigation challenges based on a selective reading of short passages in 
these lengthy documents.'' Therefore, these commenters requested 
removal of the appendices. Additionally, these commenters were 
concerned that including these guidance documents with the regulation 
would make it more difficult to change these documents in response to 
evolving practices, as any change would require a rulemaking action.
    The Office of the Federal Register, pursuant to the Federal 
Register Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 15) has established criteria for 
publishing material in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Under these criteria, agencies may use an appendix to 
improve upon the quality or use of a regulation, but not to impose 
requirements or restrictions. Additionally, agencies may not use an 
appendix as a substitute for regulatory text.\1\ The information the 
FHWA and the FTA proposed to include in appendices A and B is intended 
to be non-binding guidance. Therefore, we believe that State DOTs and 
MPOs would not be subject to increased litigation based on inclusion of 
these appendices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, October 1998 
Revision. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of 
the Federal Register. It is available at the following URL: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that Appendix A, Linking the Transportation Planning and 
NEPA Processes, provides explanatory information that amplifies the 
rule and does not add any additional requirements and would not be 
subject to many changes. Therefore, we have decided to keep Appendix A, 
but are adding a disclaimer to this effect in the introduction of 
Appendix A highlighting its non-binding status. In addition, we have 
made some minor changes to the text of Appendix A to ensure that it is 
consistent with the environmental streamlining requirements of Sec.  
6002 of the SAFETEA-LU.
    As for Appendix B, Fiscal Constraint of Transportation Plans and 
Programs, the FHWA and the FTA agree with these commenters that 
modifications to this document may be more frequently required to 
respond to evolving practices. Therefore, the FHWA and the FTA have 
decided to remove Appendix

[[Page 7226]]

B from the rule. However, there are three elements within that appendix 
that the agencies believe should be a part of the regulatory text for 
clarity and completeness. These elements are: (1) Treatment of highway 
and transit operations and maintenance costs and revenues; (2) use of 
``year of expenditure dollars'' in developing cost and revenue 
estimates; and (3) use of ``cost ranges/cost bands'' in the outer years 
of the metropolitan transportation plan. Please see the responses to 
the comments on Appendix B for additional background information and 
explanation. Consequently, we have included language in Sec.  450.216 
(Development and content of the statewide transportation improvement 
program (STIP)), Sec.  450.322 (Development and content of the 
metropolitan transportation plan), and Sec.  450.324 (Development and 
content of the transportation improvement program (TIP)) to address 
these issues within the regulation. The material contained in the 
proposed Appendix B will be made available as a guidance document on 
the agencies' Web sites.

Section-by-Section Discussion

    The discussion in this section compares the NPRM with the final 
rule and discusses comments submitted on each section along with an 
explanation of any changes we made from the NPRM to the final rule. All 
references to revisions or changes are to changes in language that we 
originally proposed in the NPRM.

23 CFR Part 450

Subpart A--Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions

Section 450.100 Purpose

    No comments were received on this section and no changes were made.

Section 450.102 Applicability

    No comments were received on this section and no changes were made.

Section 450.104 Definitions

    There were more than 45 documents with over 225 comments submitted 
on this section, with half of the documents coming from MPOs and almost 
one-fourth each from State DOTs and national and regional advocacy 
groups. Transit agencies, city/county agencies and the general public 
also commented on this section. Some of those that commented on this 
section recommended specific changes to examples or lists included in 
various definitions. It is important to note that the recommended lists 
in these definitions are intended to be advisory and not exhaustive; 
therefore, we did not make changes to the lists of examples.
    Several definitions were revised based on comments received. These 
changes are described below.
    Many State DOTs and MPOs as well as several national and regional 
advocacy organizations were concerned about the definitions of 
``administrative modification'' and ``amendment.'' Commenters requested 
greater distinction between the two terms.
    Several of those that commented on this section requested that the 
words ``minor revision'' be included in the definition of 
``administrative modification.'' This change has been made. The 
examples in this definition have also been clarified, including ``minor 
changes to project/project phase initiation dates.'' It is important to 
note that while an ``administrative modification'' can change the 
initiation date, it cannot affect the completion date of the project as 
modeled in the regional emissions analysis in nonattainment or 
maintenance areas. A change in the project/project phase completion 
date in a nonattainment or maintenance area would be considered an 
``amendment.'' Finally, based on comments, the term ``not significant'' 
was removed.
    Commenters suggested that the term ``amendment'' include the words 
``major change'' and use ``major'' in the examples. These changes have 
been made. State DOTs and MPOs should work with the FHWA and the FTA to 
identify thresholds for a ``major'' change in project cost. Examples of 
thresholds could include, but are not limited to, project cost increase 
that exceeds 20 percent of the total project cost; or project cost 
increase that exceeds a certain dollar amount, for example, the 
increase in costs exceeds the programmed amount by $50,000 or $100,000.
    Further, some State DOTs and advocacy organizations wrote that 
changes in illustrative projects should not require an amendment. We 
agree. A sentence has been added to the definition of ``amendment'' to 
clarify this point. Also, most State DOTs that commented on this 
section noted that ``amendment'' should apply differently to long-range 
statewide transportation plans, since they are not subject to fiscal 
constraint. A sentence was added to the definition to clarify the long-
range statewide transportation plan context.
    After consultation with EPA, the definition of ``attainment area'' 
was revised to be consistent with the definition in the glossary of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Plain English Guide to the 
Clean Air Act.\2\ We also included in this definition a clarification 
that a ``maintenance area'' is not considered an attainment area for 
transportation planning purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This document, ``Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act'' 
is available via the Internet at the following URL: https://
www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaain.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few commenters expressed confusion about the definitions of 
``Available funds'' and ``Committed funds'' as they relate to air 
quality conformity. We have simplified these definitions to remove the 
phrase ``for projects or project phases in the first two years of a TIP 
and/or STIP in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas.'' By 
deleting this phrase, however, we have not removed the requirement that 
projects in the first two years of a STIP and/or TIP in air quality 
nonattainment and maintenance areas be available or committed. This is 
still part of the definition under fiscal constraint. The requirement 
that these terms only apply to the first two years is already embedded 
in the regulation and does not need to be repeated in the definition of 
the terms ``Available'' and ``Committed.''
    A national and regional advocacy organization and a few transit 
agencies suggested that ``Full funding grant agreement'' and ``Project 
construction grant agreement'' be added to the examples of ``Committed 
funds.'' This change has been made. We also received a comment that the 
requirement for private funds to be in writing as part of ``Committed 
funds'' would limit private participation in transportation projects. 
The FHWA and the FTA find that a written commitment is necessary to 
ensure that the private funds ultimately are provided and is integral 
to the concept of ``committed funds.'' This change was not made.
    After consultation with the EPA, the definition of ``conformity'' 
was revised based on language from the EPA's conformity Web page \3\ 
and in the EPA's conformity rule (40 CFR 93.100).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's conformity web page can be found at the following URL: 
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
    \4\ This document is available via the Internet at the following 
URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/rule.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many MPOs wrote regarding the definition of ``congestion management 
process'' that the definition should reference Transportation System 
Management and Operations (TSMO), rather than ``management and 
operation'' to reinforce the principles of this emerging practice. The 
FHWA and the FTA do not believe this change would enhance the 
definition and note

[[Page 7227]]

that the term ``operations and management'' is taken directly from 
statute. No change was made.
    Many national and regional advocacy organizations and MPOs and COGs 
that commented on this section were concerned about the different uses 
of the term ``consultation'' in the definitions section and in Sections 
450.214 (Development and content of the long-range statewide 
transportation plan) and 450.322 (Development and content of the 
metropolitan transportation plan). The definition of consultation used 
in Sec.  450.214 (Development and content of the long-range statewide 
transportation plan) and Sec.  450.322 (Development and content of the 
metropolitan transportation plan) is consistent with the definition in 
the statute found at 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4), 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2), 49 
U.S.C. 5303(i)(4), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2) and is applicable for those 
sections. This section presents a broad definition of ``consultation'' 
for use throughout the rest of the rule. We have added a note to the 
definition of ``consultation'' to recognize that this definition is not 
the one used in Sec. Sec.  450.214 and 450.322.
    Many national and regional advocacy organizations and several MPOs 
and COGs that commented on this section also asked that 
``periodically'' be removed from the definition of ``consultation'' to 
better reflect that consideration of the other party's view and 
providing them with information should occur on a regular and ongoing 
basis, not a periodic basis. This definition is taken from the existing 
rule developed in an extensive rulemaking process in January 2003 on 
the non-metropolitan local official consultation process and agreed to 
by a number of stakeholders at that time (68 FR 7419). Further, the 
FHWA and the FTA consider ``periodically'' to mean frequently, on 
regular intervals. This change was not made.
    Many transit agencies and State DOTs as well as several MPOs, COGs 
and others requested changes to the definition of ``coordinated public 
transit-human services transportation plan'' to reduce the degree of 
procedural detail. Accordingly, the definition was changed to be 
consistent with that used in the proposed FTA Circulars for 
implementing the 49 U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs (New Freedom 
Program Guidance, The Job Access And Reverse Commute (JARC) Program, 
Elderly Individuals And Individuals With Disabilities Program) 
published in the September 2006.\5\ In addition, commenters proposed 
the addition of guidelines for preparing the coordinated public 
transit-human services transportation plan, including geographic scope, 
approval authority, and determination of lead agency. To ensure maximum 
flexibility for localities to tailor the coordinated public transit-
human services transportation plan preparation process to their areas, 
we will disseminate non-regulatory guidance on optional approaches and 
examples of effective practice, along with training and technical 
assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These documents, ``Elderly Individuals and Individuals With 
Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute,'' and ``New Freedom 
Programs: Coordinated Planning Guidance for FY 2007 and Proposed 
Circulars'' were published September 6, 2006, and are available via 
the internet at the following URLs: https://www.fta.dot.gov/
publications/publications_5607.html or https://
a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6-14733.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several MPOs and COGs expressed concern about the definition of 
``coordination'' because there is no resolution mechanism if agencies 
cannot come to agreement. The FHWA and the FTA support the development 
of a dispute resolution process for ``coordination'' and 
``consultation.'' However, such a process is not required by statute 
and is, therefore, not included in this rule. This does not preclude 
State DOTs and/or MPOs from developing their own dispute resolution 
processes as part of the transportation planning process.
    After further review, the FHWA and the FTA have removed the term 
``exclusive'' from the list of examples in the definition of ``design 
concept.'' We do not want to imply that only ``exclusive busways'' can 
be identified as a type of project.
    A proposal was offered to define the term ``designated recipient'' 
to clarify this term in the rule. This definition has been added to 
this section
    Many State DOTs and some national and regional advocacy 
organizations that commented on the definition of ``environmental 
mitigation activities'' suggested deleting ``rectify or reduce'' from 
the definition because these terms are redundant. The FHWA and the FTA 
believe that the terms ``rectify'' and ``reduce'' are related more to 
the discussion of specific projects, not the broad planning context. We 
agree with this comment and have deleted these words. In addition, MPOs 
and COGs and a few State DOTs and others suggested simplifying the 
definition by removing statements of regulatory action. We agree and 
have deleted the last sentence of the definition which reiterated 
requirements in the body of the rule. Finally, we have modified the 
definition to be clear that strategies may not necessarily address 
potential project-level impacts.
    Several major concerns were expressed regarding the definition for 
``Financially constrained or Fiscal constraint.'' Most commenters 
requested that three portions of the definition be deleted: (1) The 
phrase ``by source,'' (2) the phrase ``each program year,'' and (3) the 
phrase ``while the existing system is adequately maintained and 
operated.'' The requirement for demonstrating fiscal constraint by year 
and by source is consistent with, and carries forth language in, the 
planning rule adopted in October 1993 (58 FR 5804). The FHWA and the 
FTA consider demonstrating funding by year and by source necessary for 
decision-makers and the public to have confidence in the STIP and TIP 
as financially constrained. However, in response to concerns raised, we 
have changed the definition related to ``by source'' to be consistent 
with the October 1993 planning rule. This change clarifies that fiscal 
constraint documentation should include committed, available, or 
reasonably available revenue sources.
    Additionally, as a result of the extensive comments provided on 
Appendix B (Fiscal constraint of transportation plans and programs) we 
have changed the phrase ``while the existing system is adequately 
maintained and operated'' to ``with reasonable assurance that the 
federally supported transportation system is being adequately operated 
and maintained.'' We believe this change provides flexibility and 
addresses the commenters' concerns that the FHWA and the FTA were 
overreaching beyond the Federally supported transportation system. 
Please see the responses to the comments on Appendix B for additional 
background information and explanation. Finally, we have also clarified 
the definition to explicitly refer to ``the metropolitan transportation 
plan, TIP and STIP.''
    Many State DOTs, a few national and regional advocacy 
organizations, and some MPOs and COGs wrote that the definition of 
``financial plans'' should be changed to note that financial plans are 
not required for STIPs and are not required for illustrative projects. 
The FHWA and the FTA agree with both comments. We have added a note to 
the definition that financial plans are not required for STIPs. We also 
agree that financial plans are not required for illustrative projects. 
Sec.  450.216(m) states that ``The financial plan may include, for 
illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in 
the

[[Page 7228]]

adopted STIP if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified 
in the financial plan were available.'' We do not believe it is 
necessary to add a note to the definition regarding illustrative 
projects.
    Several State DOTs also wrote requesting that the phrase ``as well 
as operating and maintaining the entire transportation system'' be 
removed from the definition of ``financial plans.'' This change has 
been made
    Proposals were offered to define the terms ``full funding grant 
agreement'' to clarify this term in the rule. This definition has been 
added to this section.
    In response to comments regarding financial plans and fiscal 
constraint requirements, we have modified the definition of 
``illustrative project'' to clarify that ``illustrative projects'' 
refer to additional transportation projects that would be included in 
financially constrained transportation plans and programs if 
``additional resources were to become available.'' This definition also 
notes that illustrative projects may (but are not required to) be 
included in the financial plan.
    Representatives of a State DOT and a national and regional advocacy 
organization requested the inclusion of detailed methodologies for 
engaging private service providers in the transportation planning 
process, as well as standards for ascertaining compliance with private 
enterprise provisions and a complaint process. To ensure maximum 
flexibility for localities to tailor programs to the needs of private 
service providers in their areas, we will rely upon non-regulatory 
guidance, training, and technical assistance for disseminating 
information on optional approaches to private sector participation.
    The FHWA and the FTA noted that the proposed rule used an incorrect 
Clean Air Act reference in the definition of ``Maintenance area.'' This 
reference has been corrected.
    After further review, the FHWA and the FTA have made slight changes 
to the definition of ``management systems'' to be more permissive. The 
phrase ``and safety'' was changed to ``or safety'' and ``includes'' was 
changed to ``can include.''
    Some State DOTs and national and regional advocacy groups 
recommended removing the phrase ``in the preceding program year'' from 
the definition of ``obligated projects.'' The FHWA and the FTA find 
that the phrase ``in the preceding program year'' is important in the 
context of the annual listing of obligated projects (See Sec.  450.332 
(Annual listing of obligated projects)) to clarify what projects should 
be included in the list, since TIPs cover multiple years. Therefore, 
this change was not made. However, we did change the definition to 
emphasize that funds need to be ``authorized by the FHWA or awarded as 
a grant by the FTA.''
    Several State DOTs, MPOs and COGs and some national and regional 
advocacy organizations and transit agencies expressed confusion over 
the terms ``management and operations'' and ``operations and 
management'' as related to the term they propose be included in the 
rule, ``Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO).'' The 
SAFETEA-LU defined ``Operational and Management Strategies'' and its 
relationship to metropolitan long-range transportation plans. 
(Operational and management strategies means actions and strategies 
aimed at improving the performance of existing and planned 
transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and 
maximizing 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)). This definition is included 
in the rule with one change. We have removed the modifier ``vehicular'' 
to emphasize that operational and management strategies should be 
considered for all modes. The FHWA and the FTA find this term, for 
practical purposes, to be the same as the term Transportation System 
Management and Operations currently commonly in use by agencies 
involved with transportation. We have chosen to continue using the term 
``operational and management strategies'' as that is the term used in 
SAFETEA-LU.
    Several State DOTs, MPOs and COGs and some national and regional 
advocacy organizations and transit agencies also asked for 
clarification of the term ``operations and maintenance.'' The terms 
``operations'' and ``maintenance'' are used in these regulations as 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, we have not repeated the 
definitions here.
    A proposal was offered to define the term ``project construction 
grant agreement'' to clarify this term in the rule. This definition has 
been added to this section.
    After further review, we have determined it is necessary to clarify 
the definition of ``project selection'' to emphasize these are 
procedures used by MPOs, States, and public transportation operators.
    Based on comments, we have changed the term ``business'' in the 
definition of ``provider of freight transportation services'' to 
``entity.'' Freight transportation providers may include other concerns 
besides businesses.
    A proposal was offered to define the term ``public transportation 
operator'' to clarify this term in the rule. This definition has been 
added to this section.
    Several State DOTs and MPOs and COGs as well as some transit 
agencies and national and regional advocacy organizations noted that 
the definition of ``regionally significant project'' should not include 
a reference to ``all capacity expanding projects.'' After consultation 
with the EPA, the FHWA and the FTA have changed this definition to be 
consistent with the EPA's transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 
93.101).
    Several of the State DOTs, many transit agencies, and a few of the 
national advocacy organizations and MPOs and COGs commented that the 
word ``overarching'' in the definition of ``Regional Transit Security 
Strategies'' was ambiguous. Other MPOs and COGs, transit agencies and 
national and regional advocacy organizations wrote that the definition 
was overly specific without defining who would be held responsible to 
develop the strategy and also expressed concern about possible 
disclosure of security-sensitive information in the planning process. 
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FHWA and the FTA determined 
that the Department of Homeland Security does not require Regional 
Transit Security Strategies in all metropolitan areas, at all times. As 
a result, this term has been removed from this section and references 
to the term in Sec.  450.208(h), Sec.  450.214(e), and Sec.  450.306(g) 
also have been removed from the rule. Alternatively, this language has 
been replaced, in these sections, with a reference to ``other transit 
safety and security planning and review processes, plans, and programs, 
as appropriate.''
    The docket included several comments regarding the definitions for 
``revision,'' ``amendment,'' ``administrative modification,'' and 
``update.'' The definition of ``revision'' has been revised to use the 
terms ``major'' and ``minor'' rather than ``significant'' and ``non-
significant,'' consistent with the comments received and changes to the 
related terms.
    A State DOT commented on the definition of ``State implementation 
plan (SIP).'' After consultation with EPA, this definition was revised 
to cite applicable sections of the Clear Air Act and to be consistent 
with the definition in the Clean Air Act and EPA's conformity rule (40 
CFR 93.101) for ``applicable implementation plan.''
    The docket included a comment requesting clarification of the term 
``staged'' in the definition for

[[Page 7229]]

``Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).'' We have 
clarified this definition to describe the STIP as a ``prioritized 
listing/program'' and to reiterate that it must cover a period of four 
years. Similar changes were made to the definition of ``Transportation 
improvement program (TIP).''
    Some State DOTs and a national and regional advocacy organization 
suggested that the reference to ``in order to meet the regular schedule 
as prescribed by Federal statute'' be removed from the definition of 
``Update.'' A few MPOs and COGs questioned what would constitute an 
``update'' and what was meant by ``complete change.'' We agree with 
these concerns, have removed these phrases and revised and simplified 
this definition to ``Update means making current a long-range statewide 
transportation plan, metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP 
through a comprehensive review.'' Based on comments, we note in this 
definition that an ``update'' requires a 20-year horizon year for 
metropolitan transportation plans and long-range statewide 
transportation plans and a four-year program period for TIPs and STIPs.
    Several MPOs and other organizations asked for clarification of the 
term ``visualization.'' The FHWA and the FTA have changed ``employed'' 
to ``used'' in the ``Visualization techniques'' definition. Further, we 
agree that there is a need for more technical information on the use of 
visualization techniques and we intend to provide technical reports and 
guidance subsequent to the publication of this rule.
    Proposals were offered to define the terms ``advanced 
construction,'' ``encouraged to,'' ``intercity bus,'' ``interested 
parties,'' ``MPO staff,'' ``public transportation provider,'' 
``reasonable access,'' ``shall,'' and ``should.'' The FHWA and the FTA 
believe these terms are generally well understood and do not require 
additional detail.

Subpart B--Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming

Section 450.200 Purpose

    No comments were received on this section and no changes were made.

Section 450.202 Applicability

    No comments were received on this section and no changes were made.

Section 450.204 Definitions

    No comments were received on this section and no changes were made.

Section 450.206 Scope of the Statewide Transportation Planning Process

    There were more than 20 separate comments on this section with the 
most coming from State DOTs, followed by national and regional advocacy 
organizations. A small number of comments came from MPOs and COGs and 
providers of public transportation.
    In comments on this section and Sec.  450.306 (Scope of the 
metropolitan transportation planning process), many MPOs and COGs, some 
national and regional advocacy organizations and a few State DOTs noted 
that paragraph (a)(3) embellished the statutory language for the 
``security'' planning factor. Organizations that commented on this 
issue were concerned that the expanded language would require State 
DOTs and MPOs to go far beyond their traditional responsibilities in 
planning and developing transportation projects, which was not intended 
by the SAFETEA-LU. The FHWA and the FTA agree and have revised the 
language in paragraph (a)(3) to match the language in statute.
    Most of the State DOTs and several of the national and regional 
advocacy organizations that commented on this section said that the 
text in paragraph (b) should be revised similar to the text in the 
October 1993 planning rule acknowledging that the degree of 
consideration will reflect the scale and complexity of issues within 
the State. The FHWA and the FTA agree with these comments and have 
revised the rule accordingly. We have adopted the October 1993 planning 
rule language with one change. The phrase ``transportation problems'' 
was changed to ``transportation systems development.''
    After further review, we have clarified paragraph (c) to be more 
specific and to mirror the language in 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2) and 49 
U.S.C. 5304(d)(2). The paragraph now specifically refers to ``any court 
under title 23 U.S.C., 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, subchapter II of title 5 
U.S.C. Chapter 5, or title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 7'' and to the ``statewide 
transportation'' planning process finding.
    A small number of national and regional advocacy organizations and 
State DOTs that commented on this section said they would like the FHWA 
and the FTA to develop and/or encourage the use of performance measures 
when State DOTs consider the planning factors listed in this section. 
While the FHWA and the FTA encourage the use of performance measures, 
the flexibility afforded the State DOTs and MPOs in implementing the 
transportation planning process gives them wide latitude to develop a 
process that is appropriate for their jurisdiction. We believe this 
issue is best addressed in guidance and technical assistance.

Section 450.208 Coordination of Planning Process Activities

    There were almost 100 separate comments on this section mostly from 
State DOTs, followed by national and regional advocacy organizations. A 
number of comments came from MPOs and COGs with a small number from 
public transportation providers or Federal agencies.
    In some of the comments from national and regional advocacy 
organizations, MPOs and COGs, and others, the FHWA and the FTA were 
asked to expand the scope of the transportation planning process to 
include a variety of other issues and concerns. In response to these 
comments, we have added ``at a minimum'' to paragraph (a) to emphasize 
the flexibility for State DOTs to include more in their statewide 
transportation planning process than is listed in this section.
    Several MPOs and COGs that had comments on this section suggested 
clarification of paragraph (a)(1) regarding the State's use of 
information and studies provided by MPOs. The text from this paragraph 
in part carries forward but simplifies text from 23 CFR 450.210 of the 
October 1993 planning rule. The FHWA and the FTA find that the language 
provides reasonable flexibility to respond to different circumstances 
while reinforcing the importance of information and technical studies 
as a foundation in transportation planning. No changes were made to 
this paragraph.
    Many of the State DOTs that commented on this section indicated 
that coordination referenced in paragraph (a)(2) should not extend to 
private businesses. At the same time, many of the MPOs, COGs and 
national and regional advocacy organizations, as well as a public 
transportation provider that commented on this section wrote in support 
of the section and some requested that ``consult'' replace 
``coordinate.''
    The requirements in this paragraph come from the statutory 
language; therefore, no change was made. The FHWA and the FTA want to 
provide State DOTs flexibility to determine how to coordinate with 
statewide trade and economic planning activities and the level or 
coordination that needs to take place within the planning process. The

[[Page 7230]]

FHWA has made available information related to Public-Private 
Partnership opportunities, including analyses of contractual agreements 
formed between public agencies and private sector entities, on its Web 
site at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/. If necessary, we will provide 
guidance subsequent to the rule if more clarity is needed regarding 
this coordination.
    Many of the State DOTs that commented on this section said that 
coordination in paragraph (a)(3) exceeds the requirement in the 
statute. At the same time, several of the national and regional 
advocacy organizations and a Federal agency commented in support of the 
language in the proposed rule. The FHWA and the FTA find that the 
proposed language does exceed the intent of the statute, and have 
revised the rule to more closely reflect the statutory language, by 
changing ``coordinate planning'' to ``consider the concerns of.''
    Many of the State DOTs that commented on this section suggested 
placing the word ``affected'' before ``local elected officials'' in 
paragraph (a)(4). At the same time, some of the MPOs and COGs and 
national and regional advocacy organizations that provided comments on 
this section suggested changing ``consider'' to ``consult,'' which is 
used in Sec.  450.210 (Interested parties, public involvement, and 
consultation). The text follows the statutory language. The FHWA and 
the FTA considered both groups of comments and determined that using 
the statutory language for this paragraph without amplification best 
meets the intent of the statute.
    Many of the State DOTs that commented on this section said that the 
text in paragraph (a)(6) should follow the statutory language (23 
U.S.C. 135(e)(1)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(e)(1)(3)). The FHWA and the FTA 
agree and revised the rule accordingly.
    Several of the State DOTs that commented on this section objected 
to the phrase ``establish a forum'' in paragraph (a)(7), while a 
smaller number supported the text. The FHWA and the FTA want to 
emphasize the importance of information and technical studies as a 
foundation in transportation planning. While there is no statutory 
basis to require ``establish[ing] a forum,'' this paragraph has been 
revised to more closely reflect the intent from Sec.  450.210(a)(1) and 
(a)(3) of the October 1993 rule regarding coordination of data 
collection and analyses with MPOs and public transportation operators.
    After further review, the FHWA and the FTA have modified the last 
sentence of paragraph (c) to be consistent with 23 U.S.C. 135(c)(2) and 
49 U.S.C. 5304(c)(2) regarding multistate agreements and compacts.
    Many of the State DOTs and a few of the national and regional 
advocacy organizations that provided comments on this section said the 
text in paragraphs (e) and (f) went beyond statutory requirements. The 
FHWA and the FTA agree with these comments and revised the rule 
accordingly by changing ``are encouraged to'' to ``may'' in paragraph 
(e) and adding ``to the maximum extent practicable'' to paragraph (f).
    Most transit agencies, several State DOTs, MPOs, COGs, and others 
that commented on this section expressed concern or confusion about the 
requirement in paragraph (g) for the statewide transportation planning 
process to be consistent with the development of coordinated public 
transit-human services transportation plans. Several commenters 
requested the addition of procedural detail on the coordinated public 
transit-human services transportation plan, including geographic scope, 
approval authority, and determination of lead agency. Some commenters 
recommended removing the requirement entirely. We also received a 
comment questioning whether metropolitan and statewide transportation 
planning processes should be consistent with the coordinated public 
transit-human services transportation plan, or vice versa.
    To ensure maximum flexibility for localities to undertake a 
coordinated planning process that may be uniquely tailored to their 
area, we have not included additional detailed requirements in the 
rule. The FHWA and the FTA will disseminate non-regulatory guidance, 
complemented by a wide array of effective practice case studies and 
supported by training and technical assistance, on the coordinated 
public transit-human services transportation plan. The definition of 
the coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan was 
changed to be consistent with that used in the proposed FTA Circulars 
for implementing the 49 U.S.C. 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs (New 
Freedom Program Guidance And Application Instructions, The Job Access 
And Reverse Commute (JARC) Program Guidance And Application 
Instructions, Elderly Individuals And Individuals With Disabilities 
Program Guidance And Application Instructions) respectively, published 
on September 6, 2006.\6\ Additionally, provisions for promoting 
consistency between the planning processes were revised to clarify that 
the coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan 
should be prepared in full coordination and be consistent with the 
metropolitan transportation planning process. The revisions also are 
intended to add flexibility in how the coordinated transportation plans 
would be prepared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These documents, ``Elderly Individuals and Individuals With 
Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute,'' and ``New Freedom 
Programs: Coordinated Planning Guidance for FY 2007 and Proposed 
Circulars'' were published September 6, 2006, and are available via 
the internet at the following URL: https://www.fta.dot.gov/
publications/publications_5607.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the State DOTs, several transit agencies, and a few of the 
national and regional advocacy organizations that provided comments on 
this section, said the text in paragraph (h) went beyond statutory 
requirements. Several transit agencies and a few State DOTs and others 
suggested deleting paragraph (h) due to the confidential nature of 
Regional Transit Security Strategies (RTSS). An RTSS is not required of 
all metropolitan areas and States across the U.S. Reference to the RTSS 
was removed from paragraph (h). Instead, we have added a reference to 
``other transit safety and security planning and review processes, 
plans, and programs, as appropriate.''

Section 450.210 Interested Parties, Public Involvement, and 
Consultation

    The docket included 33 documents that contained about 60 comments 
on this section, with many from State DOTs, national and regional 
advocacy organizations and MPOs and COGs.
    Many of the State DOTs and some of the national and regional 
advocacy organizations said that State DOTs should not be required to 
document the public involvement process. The FHWA and the FTA find that 
an essential element of an effective public involvement process is the 
opportunity for the public to understand when, how, and where public 
comment can occur. It is important to open, effective public 
involvement that the process be documented and available for public 
review. Therefore, we have retained the requirement for a documented 
public involvement process.
    Some of the MPOs and some of the national and regional advocacy 
organizations said they would like to expand the list of interested 
parties in paragraph (a)(1)(i). Representatives of private bus 
operators requested specific mention in the regulation.

[[Page 7231]]

    The list of interested parties in the regulation is consistent with 
23 U.S.C. 135(f)(3)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(A), as amended by the 
SAFETEA-LU, and is sufficiently broad to encompass and have relevance 
to all of the suggested additional parties. The list illustrates groups 
that typically have an interest in statewide transportation planning, 
but does not preclude States from providing information about 
transportation planning to other types of individuals or organizations. 
The FHWA and the FTA note that 49 U.S.C. 5307(c) requires grant 
recipients to make available to the public information on the proposed 
program of projects and associated funding.
    Specifically in regard to MPOs, States shall coordinate with MPOs 
under Sec.  450.208 (Coordination of planning process activities). 
Therefore, a reference to MPOs here would be redundant and potentially 
confusing since this section does not require coordination with 
interested parties. No change was made to add MPOs to this paragraph.
    Many of the State DOTs and some of the national and regional 
advocacy organizations also said that State DOTs should not be required 
to document the non-metropolitan local official consultation process. 
The rule does not change the regulations published in the Federal 
Register on January 23 (68 FR 3176) and February 14, 2003 (68 FR 7418) 
regarding consultation with non-metropolitan local officials. Those 
regulations were developed based on significant review and comment by 
State DOTs and non-metropolitan local officials and their 
representatives. At that time most State DOTs and national and regional 
advocacy organizations supported the regulations. Therefore, the only 
change we have made to paragraph (b) is to change ``revisions'' to 
``changes,'' since ``revision'' is now specifically defined in the rule 
and, by that definition, is not an appropriate term for this paragraph.
    Some of the State DOTs and some national and regional advocacy 
organizations said that the text encouraging State DOTs to document 
their process for consulting with Indian Tribal Governments should be 
eliminated. The commenters believe that documenting this consultation 
process goes beyond requirements in statute. We disagree. The FHWA and 
the FTA support efforts to consult with Indian Tribal governments and 
find that documentation of consultation processes are essential to a 
party's ability to understand when, how, and where the party can be 
involved. Upon further consideration, to strengthen the involvement of 
Indian Tribal governments in the statewide transportation planning 
process, we have changed paragraph (c) from ``States are encouraged 
to'' to ``States shall, to the extent practicable.''

Section 450.212 Transportation Planning Studies and Project Development

    Section 1308 of the TEA-21 required the Secretary to eliminate the 
major investment study (MIS) set forth in Sec.  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 analysis 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. The purpose of this section and Sec.  
450.318 (Transportation planning studies and project development) is to 
implement this requirement of Section 1308 of the TEA-21 and eliminate 
the MIS as a stand-alone requirement. A phrase has been added to 
paragraph (a) to clarify the purpose of this section.
    The docket included more than 20 documents that contained more than 
50 comments on this section with about two-thirds from State DOTs and 
the rest from MPOs or COGs, and national and regional advocacy 
organizations. The comments on this section were similar to, and often 
referenced, the comments on Sec.  450.318 (Transportation planning 
studies and project development).
    Most of the comments received supported the concept of linking 
planning and NEPA but opposed including Appendix A in the rule. The 
purpose of an Appendix to a regulation is to improve the quality or use 
of a rule, without imposing new requirements or restrictions. 
Appendices provide supplemental, background or explanatory information 
that illustrates or amplifies a rule. Because Appendix A provides 
amplifying information about how State DOTs, MPOs and public 
transportation operators can choose to conduct transportation planning-
level choices and analyses so they may be adopted or incorporated into 
the process required by NEPA, but does not impose new requirements, the 
FHWA and the FTA find that Appendix A is useful information to be 
included in support of this and other sections of the rule. A phrase 
has been added to paragraph (c) to clarify this point. Additionally, we 
have added disclaimer language at the introduction of Appendix A.
    The FHWA and the FTA recognize commenters' concerns about Appendix 
A, including the recommendation that this information be kept as 
guidance rather than be made a part of the rule. First, information in 
an Appendix to a regulation does not carry regulatory authority in 
itself, but rather serves as guidance to further explain the 
regulation. Secondly, as stated above, Section 1308 of TEA-21 required 
the Secretary to eliminate the MIS as a separate requirement, and 
promulgate regulations to integrate such requirement, as appropriate, 
as part of the transportation planning process. Appendix A fulfills 
that Congressional direction by providing explanatory information 
regarding how the MIS requirement can be integrated into the 
transportation planning process. Inclusion of this explanatory 
information as an Appendix to the regulation will make the information 
more readily available to users of the regulation, and will provide 
notice to all interested persons of the agencies' official guidance on 
MIS integration with the planning process. Attachment of Appendix A to 
this rule will provide convenient reference for State DOTs, MPOs and 
public transportation operator(s) who choose to incorporate planning 
results and decisions in the NEPA process. It will also make the 
information readily available to the public. Additionally, the FHWA and 
the FTA will work with Federal environmental, regulatory, and resource 
agencies to incorporate the principles of Appendix A in their day-to-
day NEPA policies and procedures related to their involvement in 
highway and transit projects. For the reasons stated above, after 
careful consideration of all comments, the FHWA and the FTA have 
decided to attach Appendix A to the final rule as proposed in the NPRM.
    Most State DOTs and several MPOs and COGs, and national and 
regional advocacy organizations that commented on this section were 
concerned that the language in paragraph (a) is too restrictive. The 
FHWA and the FTA agree that planning studies need not ``meet the 
requirements of NEPA'' to be incorporated into NEPA documents. Instead, 
we have changed the language in paragraph (a) to ``consistent with'' 
NEPA. In addition, we have added the phrase ``multimodal, systems-
level'' before ``corridor or subarea'' to emphasize the ``planning'' 
venue for environmental consideration.
    Commenters on this section also requested that the rule clarify 
that the State DOT has the responsibility for conducting corridor or 
subarea studies in the statewide transportation planning

[[Page 7232]]

process. The FHWA and the FTA recognize that the State DOT is 
responsible for the statewide transportation planning process. However, 
we do not want to preclude MPOs or public transportation operators, in 
consultation or jointly with the State DOT, from conducting corridor or 
subarea studies. Therefore, we have changed paragraph (a) to add the 
sentence ``To the extent practicable, development of these 
transportation planning studies shall involve consultation with, or 
joint efforts among, the State(s), MPO(s), and/or public transportation 
operator(s).''
    Some State DOTs suggested incorporating planning decisions rather 
than documents into the NEPA process. The FHWA and the FTA find that 
decisions made as part of the planning studies may be used as part of 
the overall project development process and have changed paragraph (a) 
to include the word ``decisions'' as well as ``results.'' It is 
important to note, however, that a decision made during the 
transportation planning process should be presented in a documented 
study or other source materials to be included in the project 
development process. Documented studies or other source materials may 
be incorporated directly or by reference into NEPA documents, as noted 
in Sec.  450.212(b). We have added ``or other source material'' to 
paragraph (b) to recognize source materials other than planning studies 
may be used as part of the overall project development process.
    It is important to note that this section does not require NEPA-
level evaluation in the transportation planning process. Planning 
studies need to be of sufficient disclosure and embrace the principles 
of NEPA so as to provide a strong foundation for the inclusion of 
planning decisions in the NEPA process. The FHWA and the FTA also 
reiterate the voluntary nature of this section and the amplifying 
information in Appendix A. States, transit operators and/or MPOs may 
choose to undertake studies which may be used in the NEPA process, but 
are not required to do so.
    Several State DOTs and national and regional advocacy organizations 
were concerned about the identification and discussion of environmental 
mitigation. They did not believe that detail on environmental 
mitigation activities was appropriate in the transportation planning 
process. The FHWA and the FTA agree. Paragraph (a)(5) calls for 
``preliminary identification of environmental impacts and environmental 
mitigation.'' The FHWA and the FTA believe that the term 
``preliminary'' adequately indicates that State DOTs are not expected 
to provide the same level of detail on impacts and mitigation as would 
be expected during the NEPA process.
    Based on comments on Appendix A, we added the phrase ``directly 
or'' in paragraph (b), to indicate the use of publicly available 
planning documents for subsequent NEPA documents.
    Also based on comments on Appendix A, we added the phrase 
``systems-level'' in paragraph (b)(2), to emphasize that these corridor 
or subarea studies are conducted during the planning process at a 
broader scale than project specific studies under NEPA.
    Several State DOTs and many others who submitted comments on this 
section noted that the word ``continual'' in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) 
provides the public with more opportunity to comment than is necessary. 
We agree and have replaced ``continual'' with ``reasonable'' in this 
paragraph, consistent with the terminology in Sec.  450.316(a) 
(Interested parties, participation and consultation). Also in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii) a number of commenters noted that the paragraph references 
the metropolitan transportation planning process when it shoul