|
|---|
|
Publication of Guidance on Certification of Metropolitan Planning Processes; Notification of FY 94 Reviews Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration Byline: Rodney E. Slater • Gordon J. Linton Date: 19 August 1994 Subject: American Government 
|
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20536]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 19, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
[FHWA/FTA Docket No. 94-19]
Publication of Guidance on Certification of Metropolitan Planning
Processes; Notification of FY 94 Reviews
AGENCIES: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 28, 1994, the FHWA and the FTA Administrators jointly
issued guidance to their respective regional administrators on the
implementation of the Federal certification of the metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO) (transportation management area (TMA))
planning process. This guidance outlines the principles and interim
procedures that will be utilized in implementing the certification
process required under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) and as further articulated in the US DOT regulations.
This notice also announces the schedule of FY 1994 reviews as known
at this time. As indicated in the attached certification guidance, the
FHWA and FTA are planning approximately twenty reviews for FY 1994,
approximately half of which will be pilots for the purpose of testing
and refining the review process. Interested parties are invited to
submit comments on the individual planning processes to be reviewed.
DATES: Comments on metropolitan planning processes under review must be
received within thirty (30) days of the scheduled review in order to be
considered during the certification review process. Where reviews have
already been held by the publication of this notice, individuals
interested in commenting on them should immediately contact Sheldon
Edner (see following paragraph for phone number and address and further
instructions below). Where dates are to be announced, a supplemental
notice announcing these dates will be issued when the specific dates
are confirmed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FHWA: Mr. Sheldon Edner, Planning
Operations Branch (HEP-21), (202) 366-4066 (metropolitan planning) or
Mr. Reid Alsop, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-31), (202) 366-
1371. For the FTA: Mr. Paul Verchinski, Resource Management Division
(TGM-21), (202) 366-6385 or Mr. Scott Biehl, FTA Office of the Chief
Counsel (TCC-40), (202) 366-4063. Both agencies are located at 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours for FHWA are
from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., and for the FTA are from 8:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections 1024, 1025, and 3012 of the ISTEA,
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1955, 1962, and 2098, amended title
23, U.S.C., and the Federal Transit Act by revising sections 134 and
135 of title 23 and section 8 of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C.
app. 1607) which require a continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated
transportation planning process in metropolitan areas and States. The
FHWA and the FTA revised their previous metropolitan planning
regulations to implement these changes and published the final
regulations on October 28, 1993 (58 FR 58040).
As part of an ongoing commitment to public involvement in the
planning process, the FHWA and FTA are soliciting comments on this
guidance. As the agencies conduct certification reviews in FY 1994 we
will be looking at possible modifications based both on the experience
of having conducted the reviews and on the comments received on the
guidance and during the reviews. Specifically, the FHWA and FTA are
interested in comments regarding the process of review, appropriate
sources of information to be considered during the review, and the role
of key government officials and the public in providing input to the
review.
General
Additional Public Involvement in Certification Process
The FHWA and FTA are soliciting public comment on the planning
processes of the FY 1994 certification review sites identified below.
The agencies are particularly interested in input regarding the
strengths and weaknesses of the planning process in light of the
requirements identified in 23 CFR 450 Subpart C. Additionally, the
views of local officials and the public are welcomed regarding the use
of the planning process in transportation investment decisions.
Schedule of FY 1994 Certification Reviews
The following schedule is subject to revision. Changes will be
announced in the Federal Register. Parties interested in providing
comments on the metropolitan transportation planning processes in the
identified areas should submit them directly to the Docket 94-19
identified above, clearly identifying the metropolitan area that the
comments address. Except where the certification review was completed
prior to this Federal Register Notice, comments on metropolitan
planning processes under review must be received within 30 days of the
scheduled review in order to be considered during the certification
review process. Where the review was completed prior to publication of
this notice, interested parties wishing to make comments on a
particular certification, must contact Sheldon Edner within two weeks
of the date of this notice to assure that their comments will be
considered. Where dates for a planned certification review have not
been established, please contact Sheldon Edner for the dates.
The site visits are intended to provide an opportunity for the FHWA
and FTA review team to solicit information from the MPO, State DOT and
transit agency regarding the implementation of the planning process. In
addition, the team will be experimenting with alternative mechanisms
for soliciting public and local official input. The relevant MPO is
being asked to provide public notice, through its regular public notice
processes, of the review and the opportunity to provide public input to
the review team. Public officials should contact the MPO to identify
processes set up to solicit local government input.
The results of the certification reviews will be made public
through the regular MPO public information process at a time to be set
by the MPO policy board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Pilot reviews Second review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/2\.................. Albany, NY: August 9- Both reviews in this
12, 1994.. region will be pilot
Worcester, MA: August 2- reviews because of
3, 1994. the geographic
difference in FTA and
FHWA regions.
3...................... Richmond, VA: September Allentown, PA: Dates
12-15, 1994. TBA but probably the
week of September 22-
23, 1994.
4...................... Nashville, TN: July 11- All reviews in this
13, 1994.. region will be pilots
Louisville, KY: because of the
September 6-8, 1994.. diversity of MPOs and
Orlando, FL: August 22- the large number of
24, 1994. TMAs in the region.
5...................... Indianapolis, IN: None selected at this
August 29- September time.
2, 1994.
6...................... Albuquerque, NM: August San Antonio, TX:
10-12, 1994. August 29-30, 1994.
7...................... Omaha, NE: July 18-20, Wichita, KS: TBA.
1994.
8...................... Provo, UT: August 9-12, Denver, CO: TBA.
1994.
9...................... San Diego, CA: August 1- Santa Barbara, CA:
4, 1994. September 13-15,
1994.
10..................... Spokane, WA: July 25- Portland, OR: TBA.
27, 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text of Certification Transmittal Memorandum and Guidance
The text of the transmittal memorandum and guidance follow.
ACTION: Federal Certification of the MPO (TMA) Planning Process
To: FTA Regional Administrators; FHWA Regional Administrators
From: Federal Transit Administrator; Federal Highway Administrator
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) has significantly enhanced the stewardship role of the FTA and
FHWA in the implementation of the changes it mandates in the
transportation planning process. Inherent within the approval of
Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP), planning
findings, conformity determinations and certification of the
transportation planning process in Transportation Management Areas
(TMA) is the fundamental leadership responsibility of FTA and FHWA in
ensuring that the transportation planning process addresses the policy
goals of the ISTEA. This memorandum articulates our general agency
expectations with regard to this planning stewardship and the specific
function that certification plays within this broader framework. While
certification of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) TMA
planning processes falls within the purview of the metropolitan
planning regulations, the basic principles apply to both the statewide
and metropolitan planning requirements.
We view certification of the planning process within TMAs as one of
a number of the critical mechanisms for ensuring the satisfactory
implementation of the planning requirements identified in 23 U.S.C. l34
and 49 U.S.C. 1602. It is perhaps most critical in the sense that it
will be a very visible action and formal indication that we have
exercised our legal responsibility in meeting this stewardship
function. However, the individual planning findings, necessary
conformity determinations and STIP approvals provide critical input to
this triennial action. We expect our regions to establish procedures
for implementing this joint responsibility. While the substance of
these decisions must remain consistent across regions, the variation in
workload posed by the distribution of TMAs will dictate procedural
accommodations by region.
The attached statement of principles and guidance provides a
framework for addressing the implementation of the certification
requirement. We expect the responsibility for issuing certification
determinations to rest jointly with our field offices, working in
partnership with Headquarters. The effective implementation of the
certification process will require a significant allocation of
resources which you should address in the development of regional
staffing and travel budgets.
Especially in this initial effort and in recognition of the phase-
in provisions of the metropolitan planning regulations (Section
45.336), we expect the emphasis to rest on ensuring a good faith effort
to implement plan updates and the priorities indicated in the
attachment. We also expect that the message conveyed to MPOs, state
DOTs and transit operators collectively will be that they are mutually
responsible for the continuing enhancement and improvement of the
planning process to meet the objectives of the ISTEA planning
requirements.
We expect the primary responsibility for implementing our
stewardship role to rest with FTA and FHWA field staff. However, this
is manifested not only in the certification process, but also in STIP
approvals, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and STIP planning
findings, conformity findings, and unified planning work program
approvals. In recognition of our national stewardship role and mandate
from the ISTEA, we plan to conduct Enhanced Planning Reviews (EPR) in
selected metropolitan areas which will be integrated with the
certification processes for the respective metropolitan areas. These
EPRs will be done at the request of states, MPOs, transit operators or
FTA/FHWA field or Headquarters offices to pursue more complex planning
process questions and to assist MPOs in improving their procedures. As
a supplement to these EPRs, we plan to develop and implement an overall
assessment of the planning process and its implementation under the
ISTEA requirements over the next three fiscal years. The results of the
planning reviews will provide input to this analysis. The challenge and
the expectations are such that we believe that a very visible and
substantial assessment is necessary to demonstrate our joint commitment
and success in providing the leadership expected of both agencies. You
will be hearing more about this initiative as it is developed.
We will be discussing the attached certification procedures and
guidance with your offices at opportunities over the next several
weeks. In conjunction with FHWA's Advance Planning Seminar which is
scheduled for the week of April 10, we expect to have FHWA and FTA
field staff participating in this seminar assist us in refining the
attached certification procedures and guidance. Additionally, we will
meet with field staff during May to discuss the certification process
in more detail after additional guidance has been developed. As
indicated in the attached paper, once this meeting has been held and
the guidance refined, Headquarters staff will participate with field
staff in conducting a pilot certification review in each region.
Certification reviews should not be initiated by field staff pending
the issuance of the additional guidance and/or completion of the pilot
certification reviews. If you have questions on certification, please
contact Deborah Burns, Office of Planning, TGM-21, at (202) 366-1637 or
Sheldon Edner, Office of Environment and Planning, HEP-21, at (202)
366-4066.
Gordon J. Linton,
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
Rodney E. Slater,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Guidance Certification of the Metropolitan Planning Process in TMAs
Principles/Process
Must be a joint action by FHWA and FTA.
Must be based on a serious examination of the planning
process that documents the adequacy of the planning process. However,
the workload involved in reviewing the planning process for
approximately 135 MPOs once every 3 years combined with other oversight
and administrative responsibilities demands a process that utilizes and
builds on the other oversight functions including TIP findings, Unified
Planning Work Program approvals and conformity findings.
The certification process must recognize the differences
among areas and not expect each area to respond to the requirements to
some predefined minimum level/standard. The goal should be to encourage
an improved planning process in each area rather than a process that
only minimally meets the requirements.
Process must recognize that certification is likely to
involve negotiated improvements and schedules rather than pass or fail
ratings. In this vein, the ISTEA sanction provisions are viewed as a
``last resort'' action to be used in situations where the parties
involved are unresponsive to needed corrections or there are very
serious inadequacies in the planning process. In almost all cases, it
is likely that the ``planning finding'' process discussed below would
probably have identified deficiencies and may have already affected the
advancement of projects.
While certification is the formal mechanism provided by
ISTEA for determining the adequacy of the planning process in TMAs, a
``once-every-three-years-look'' at the planning process is not
sufficient to ensure that the planning process, its products, and our
actions related to the planning process meet the requirements.
Fortunately, the regulations provide additional mechanisms for assuring
the adequacy of the planning process, i.e., the planning finding that
must be made on each TIP/TIP amendment in all metropolitan planning
areas prior to its inclusion in an approved STIP, the air quality
conformity determination process in nonattainment and maintenance
areas, and the review and approval of the planning work programs for
all metropolitan areas.
The planning finding provides a mechanism for identifying problems
and requiring immediate corrective action without going through the
more formal certification process. In addition, the planning finding
process can provide an early warning mechanism for initiating a
certification review prior to end of the normal 3 year certification
period as well as in highlighting parts of the planning process that
need to be examined in more depth as part of regularly scheduled
certification reviews (and conversely identifying those parts that are
clearly meeting the regulatory requirements and therefore require less
review in the certification process). Although pre-ISTEA planning
findings may have relied primarily on the State and MPO self-
certification statements, this is not expected to be the case under the
regulations. It is expected that FHWA/FTA as part of the planning
findings process will review the adequacy of public involvement,
financial constraint, relationship of projects in TIP to the
transportation plan, and satisfaction of the provisions relating to the
restriction on SOV projects in TMAs that are nonattainment for carbon
monoxide and/or ozone.
The conformity regulations require consultation with a number of
agencies (including FHWA and FTA) on key elements of the metropolitan
planning process, including models to be used, proposed plans and TIPs,
research and data collection related to the transportation planning
process. The concerns that may be raised through this consultation
process will provide another mechanism for identifying potential
shortcomings in the planning process. Additionally, as part of the
conformity determination in nonattainment areas requiring TCMs, FHWA
and FTA must specifically consider comments concerning the financial
feasibility of the plan and TIP made through the conformity
consultation process and the metropolitan planning public involvement
process.
Where review of the work programs indicates that essential
activities for complying with the regulations are not being adequately
undertaken and/or the proposed schedules for completing the activities
do not satisfy regulatory requirements, the need for revisions to the
work program can be addressed. Where there is not a positive response,
FHWA and FTA can pursue this through action on the UPWP or a
certification review could be initiated without waiting the normal
three years.
It is expected that FHWA and FTA field staff will involve
themselves in the planning process on at least a selective basis, e.g.,
participation in key MPO meetings, monitoring TIP revisions, etc. This
can be a valuable mechanism for not only surfacing potential problems
and deficiencies in the planning process, and in initiating corrective
action but also providing contact with local officials. This is an
enhancement of the traditional planning oversight role of FHWA and FTA
field offices.
Enhanced planning reviews (EPRs) similar to the ones that
FHWA and FTA have been doing in areas over a million can provide
valuable input to the certification reviews and other oversight
functions. For example, where FHWA and FTA identify an apparent
shortcoming in the technical process, a comprehensive review of this
portion of the process could be undertaken with Transportation Systems
Center (TSC) staff. They could also be used to do ``peer'' type reviews
on a selected or request basis. In what ever form, these EPRs will
require substantial additional resources.
Reviews conducted under the FHWA Office of Program Review
annual review program may also augment the certification reviews and
other oversight functions. For example, last year implementation of the
flexibility provisions and administration of joint FHWA/FTA projects
was the subject of one of the reviews.
Individual certification reviews should be tailored to
reflect the information available from other oversight activities.
While this may not be a significant factor for the certifications
performed in the remainder of FY-94, this will become a significant
factor as other oversight functions reflect the regulatory
requirements. This means that while all aspects of the process will be
addressed in the certification findings a significant amount of the
information needed to make a decision on certification will be obtained
from other oversight activities and day-to-day involvement in the
planning process. It is expected that the certification process will
include a discussion of the findings with the MPO policy body.
Certification reviews in the balance of 1994 (at least) will need
to be done with the recognition that MPOs, States, and transit
operators will have had little time to address new regulatory
requirements and even less time to consider any nonregulatory guidance
that may be issued to supplement the regulations. These reviews need to
focus on how well they have addressed the interim guidance and what
they are doing to begin to address the additional requirements in the
final regulations.
Guidance for DOT staff conducting certifications will have
to be developed. This may include manuals, certification forms,
checklists, etc.
FHWA and FTA field staff will be the primary staff
involved in certifying MPOs. An assessment will have to be made on
training that may be necessary to equip DOT staff to perform
certification reviews. One potential mechanism in lieu of any formal
training is for Headquarters to lead the initial certification review
in each Region.
As part of the process, the areas identified below represent focal
points in the first round of certification reviews. They have been the
subject of keen interest by several key constituencies, represent
priority issues to FHWA and FTA and have been the subject of numerous
questions by MPOs, States, and transit agencies. These areas should be
addressed in a general way, reflecting the phase-in of the planning
requirements.
Fifteen Factors--The planning regulations (58 FR 58040) require
that the 15 factors be explicitly considered and analyzed as
appropriate.
Public Involvement--The metropolitan transportation planning
process should include provisions that encourage and ensure early and
continuing involvement of citizens, affected public agencies,
representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers
of transportation, and other interested parties in the development of
plans and TIPs, and in all other stages of the planning process.
Major Transportation Investments--Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPO) and their planning partners must undertake detailed
and participatory corridor and subarea studies of any major corridor
investments contained in a regional plan. These studies will include
detailed analysis of the forecasted effectiveness of alternative
investments and strategies in terms of a broad array of criteria.
Congestion Management System--In TMAs, the planning process must
include the development of a Congestion Management System (CMS) that
provides for effective management of new and existing transportation
facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational
management strategies. In TMAs that are nonattainment for carbon
monoxide and/or ozone, Federal funds are not to be programmed for
highway projects that increase Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) carrying
capacity unless such projects result from a CMS, meaning, in essence,
that Transportation Demand Management (TDM), transit, operating
strategies, and other actions must be looked at as alternatives to new
highway construction. Even if such strategies cannot completely satisfy
the need for additional capacity, they must be implemented in
conjunction with the SOV capacity enhancements.
The planning process and Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990
conformity--In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the MPO must have
an adequate process to ensure conformity of plans and programs with
State or Federal implementation plans, in accordance with procedures
contained in the rules resulting from the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.
Financially constrained plans and TIPS--The regulations require
that MPOs have in place a process that produces current metropolitan
plans and TIPs that are financially feasible. Plans must demonstrate
the consistency of proposals with known and reasonably expected sources
of revenue for transportation uses. The TIP must be financially
constrained and include a plan that demonstrates how it can be
implemented without detriment to operation and maintenance of the
existing transportation system, and only projects for which funds can
reasonably be expected to be available may be programmed. The
metropolitan TIP is incorporated into the financially constrained State
TIP which is jointly approved by FHWA and FTA. In nonattainment and
maintenance areas, funds for projects in the first two years of a TIP
must be available or committed.
Schedule of Activities
By April 1, 1994
Develop and issue draft guidance for field.
Schedule meeting on certification with field staff and
schedule pilot reviews in each Region.
By July 31, 1994
Complete one pilot review per region, evaluate results,
and make any necessary modifications to guidance.
By September 30, 1994
Each region should complete at least one additional
certification review.
Evaluate results and regional/State workload. If necessary
modify approach and consider options for handling workload. (There is
significant disparity in the certification workload by Region as well
as individual States.)
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48; 3012 Pub. L. 102-240,
Sections 1024, 1025; 105 Stat. 1914, 1955, 1962, and 2098.
Issued on: August 16, 1994
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administration.
Gordon J. Linton,
Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-20536 Filed 08-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P