Final Statement of Basis,
Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose

Rules and Regulations for the Statewide Transportation Planning Process and Transportation Planning Regions
 
Division of Transportation Development
Colorado Department of Transportation
4201 East Arkansas, Room 225
Denver, CO 80222

                                            July 17, 2006                                              

Introduction

The Rules and Regulations for the Statewide Transportation Planning Process and Transportation Planning Regions (“The Rules”) were first promulgated in 1992, pursuant to the specific statutory authority of §43-1-1103 (5) C.R.S. (1991), becoming effective October 30, 1992. This first established the fifteen transportation planning regions and set forth the basic process by which regional transportation plans are completed by regional planning commissions and then incorporated into the statewide transportation plan. The Rules were promulgated as a result of federal and state legislation as was documented in the “Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose” which was incorporated by reference at that time.

Section VI-A of the Rules was amended June 27, 1994 to incorporate provisions concerning public involvement following federal regulations issued in 1993.  The “Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose” for those amendments was not incorporated by reference at that time, but is incorporated by reference in the  rules.

Colorado’s 20 Year Transportation Plan, adopted in January 1996, states that the Colorado Department of Transportation (the Department) will “review and refine the transportation planning process through the rulemaking process” (p. 159). The Transportation Commission, at its January 16, 1997 meeting, authorized the Department to proceed with a rulemaking to clarify the planning process and the roles and relationships of the Department with regional planning commissions and metropolitan planning organizations. The  rules also include new provisions regarding air quality at-risk areas which do not impose new requirements, but bring existing Department policies into the planning context.

In anticipation of this rulemaking, the Department initiated contacts with transportation stakeholders throughout the state to develop appropriate changes to the Rules. The chronology of these discussions and contacts is as follows:

	Debriefing Workshop - On April 11, 1996, the Department invited participants in regional and statewide transportation planning to a workshop to discuss the recently completed process that culminated with the adoption of Colorado’s 20 Year Transportation Plan. Participants included regional planning commission members, local planning staff, planning consultants, representatives of interest groups, representatives of Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and Department planning staff and management. Many of the ideas generated at the all-day session have been incorporated in the  rules.

	Amendment Process - During the spring and summer of 1996, Department staff met with a subcommittee of the statewide transportation advisory committee (STAC) to develop a more detailed process by which the statewide plan could be amended. The process was approved by the STAC on July 15, 1996. Provisions related to that process have been incorporated in the  rules.

	Early Notification - On November 27, 1996, and in anticipation of the upcoming rulemaking, the existing rules with preliminary proposed changes were mailed to the statewide transportation advisory committee; Colorado Counties, Inc.; the Colorado Municipal League;  the planning director of each municipality and county; and other individuals and groups expressing an interest in the process. In addition, a letter was mailed advising 1,157 other interested parties of the anticipated rulemaking and the availability of the proposed rules. The proposed rules were also distributed within the Department to executive management, regions and others expressing interest in the planning process. Comments were solicited from all parties.

	Statewide Planning Team - A team representing the Division of Transportation Development (DTD) and Department Regions has met regularly since August 21, 1996 to discuss the transportation planning process, including the proposed rules, and make recommendations for improvements. This team has reviewed all drafts and provided comments to staff directly responsible for developing the proposed rules.

	STAC and Subcommittee - At its December 11, 1996 meeting the STAC appointed a subcommittee to review the draft proposed rules. This subcommittee met several times during the next several months and provided input to further refinements. Many of those comments have been considered and included in the proposed rules. The STAC voted unanimously on April 2, 1997 to recommend approval of the Rules as drafted.

	Regional Planning Commission meetings - DTD planning staff distributed the draft proposed rules at numerous regional planning commission meetings throughout the state and invited comment.

	Transportation Commission Workshop - The Transportation Commission held a workshop with DTD staff on February 19, 1997 to discuss the planning process followed by a second workshop on May 14, 1997 specifically on the proposed rules. Several outstanding issues requiring additional development were identified at that time. Following these workshops, DTD staff held additional discussions with concerned parties to develop appropriate items to include in the proposed rules.

	Notice - The Department made every effort to notify all concerned parties of the rulemaking and made copies of the proposed rules available to anyone who wanted them. This large effort was made in response to the Administrative Procedures Act which requires 30 days notice prior to rulemaking hearings, federal planning regulations which require 45 days notice before changing public participation procedures, and Department policies on “Customer Focus” and “Partnership” directing the Department to involve all appropriate participants. Notice of the rulemaking was mailed to approximately 3500 parties about June 1, 1997, published in the Digest of Current Events on June 10, 1997 and in 19 Colorado newspapers the last week of June 1997.

As a result, proposed amendments to the Rules (proposed rules) were drafted and Notice of Rulemaking Hearing submitted to the Secretary of State and the Office of Regulatory Reform and published in the Colorado Code of Regulations pursuant to §24-4-103 Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) of  the Administrative Procedures Act (1991). This “Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose” presents for the record the Department’s explanation of the statutory basis and the consensus-based body of thought in support of the  amendments only. Each of the eight sections of the  rules contain some  amendments and are examined individually below, section by section. The headings of this “Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose”  reflect the numbering and headings of the  rules. Only sections proposed for revision are discussed here. Where section or paragraph titles have been deleted, they are shown struck out to enable cross-referencing with the proposed rules.

In addition to substantive changes, the Department proposes a number of minor changes that are 
intended to inform the reader, clarify existing provisions or to improve form. In such cases, no substantive change is intended and are not fully documented in every instance in this “Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose.”

When discussing the Rules, this document uses the term  “original text” to refer to the existing rules adopted in 1992 and amended in 1994 and “proposed language” or “proposed rules” to refer to changes proposed to the original text.

I.	Purpose

All references to “the state transportation plan” and/or “state planning process” have been amended here, and throughout the  rules, to refer to “the statewide transportation plan” and/or “planning process” to more accurately reflect the common usage of the terms as developed since the original rules were adopted and to be consistent with the federal definition at Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 450.104 (1996). There is no substantive difference in meaning, but is simply a matter of form.

The Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and Federal Aviation Administration are added to the list of entities with which the Department will coordinate when developing, updating and amending transportation plans. The regulations at Title 23 CFR 450.210 (a) (5) (1996) require that the state coordinate with federal agencies in the development of the statewide plan. These three agencies are the principal federal transportation agencies with which the state coordinates and were added as clarification of the existing federal rule. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior is added to replace the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be consistent with Title 23 USC Section 135 (e) (1991). The Bureau of Indian Affairs is within the Department of Interior. No substantive change in parties with which the Department coordinates is intended. Other federal agencies, including the Federal Rail Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the US Forest Service are included in the planning process when appropriate. 

The transportation advisory committee was created by §43-1-1104 C.R.S. (1991) as an advisory body to the transportation planning process. “Statewide” is added to the term to differentiate it from preexisting transportation advisory committees functioning at the local and regional levels. It is now referred to as the “statewide transportation advisory committee (STAC).” No substantive change is intended.

“Prioritization and” is added to reflect current Department policy that transportation projects must be set in priority order in a cooperative process by the Department and transportation planning regions prior to being considered or selected for the programming and budgeting process. Such project prioritization is necessary to assist the Department in selecting the most effective projects for subsequent programming and funding.

II.	Authority/Incorporation

The section heading is amended to include “Incorporation,” the purpose of which is to identify materials that are being incorporated by reference pursuant to §24-4-103 (12.5) C.R.S. (1994) as specified by the notice of November 6, 1995 from the Office of Legislative Legal Services to rulemaking authorities.

A.	Language is added to clarify that the specific statutory authority for the Transportation Commission to promulgate the Rules governing the transportation planning process is at §43-1-1103(5) C.R.S. (1991). Other authority for the Commission to conduct rulemaking is in §43-1-101(1)(d)(e) and §43-1-106(8) C.R.S. (1991) where general duties of the Commission are described, including the ability to conduct rulemaking hearings.

B.	The Statements of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose for the existing rules effective October 30, 1992 and amended June 27, 1994, and for these  rules, are incorporated by reference; are exhibits to the proceedings; and, are available on request from the Department. Those documents were completed at the time of their respective rulemaking hearings, but language incorporating them by reference was not included at that time.

C.	The  rules incorporate by reference sections of the Code of Federal Regulations upon which certain sections of the Rules are based. These provisions regulate the transportation planning process described in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (Title 23), including descriptions of the responsibilities of the state and metropolitan planning organizations during the transportation planning process and the content that long range transportation plans must include. Further descriptions of the incorporated provisions are included in the sections where cited.

D.	This subsection was added to clarify that future amendments to federal regulations are not a part of the rules. Pursuant to §24-4-103 (12.5) C.R.S. (1994) -- the Administrative Procedures Act -- rules  may only incorporate  regulations that are current at the time of the adoption of the Rules and do not pertain to amendments to those regulations following the adoption date. The incorporated materials are available upon request from the Department and are also available at State Publications Libraries. 

III.	Definitions

[added] Air Quality At-Risk Area - Air Quality At-Risk Areas are identified jointly by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) as a means of notifying areas that sufficient small particulate matter, ie., PM10 or PM 2.5, is present or may likely become present during the period covered by the long range transportation plan to the extent that the area may exceed federal guidelines for ambient air quality. Sufficient violations, as described in Title 40 CFR 51, may cause the area to be listed as a nonattainment area subject to further restrictive regulations with regard to transportation development. Further discussion of the criteria to evaluate air quality at-risk areas will be provided in guidelines for the regional planning process prior to the next update cycle beginning in July 1998.

Initial drafts of the proposed rules included specific criteria the Department and the CDPHE proposed as benchmarks to identify Air Quality At-Risk Areas. However, comments received for the STAC indicated the criteria as proposed were either ill-defined or arbitrary and as such should not be a part of the rule. Most commentors believed that the concept of assisting areas in determining if they are at-risk for these pollutants was valid, but were concerned that it could lead to overly restrictive or onerous requirements. The Department agrees that provisions relating to this rule should be advisory and are not meant to impose external restrictions.

The “Department Policy on Air Quality,” Number 1901.0, effective January 19, 1995, directed the Department, in part, “to prevent the occurrence of new violations of air quality standards” in areas that do not currently violate such standards. It further directs the Department to develop a partnership with the CDPHE and other air quality agencies, in a “coalition of varied transportation and air quality needs at the state, regional, and local levels.” The coalition of interests should include a coordinated decision-making process that involves all concerned agencies and the general public. The Department also developed, in January 1995, an “Air Quality Action Plan” to implement Policy Directive Number 1901.0. Strategy 4 states, “Department will work closely with the CDPHE to identify areas that are at -risk for poor air quality and work with local agencies to voluntarily implement ‘Best Management Practices’ to reduce the risks of unhealthy air in those areas and prevent new violations of air quality standards.”

The Department believes that provisions in the  rules relating to air quality at-risk areas are important steps in implementing Policy Directive 1901.0 and the “Air Quality Action Plan.” The Department will work closely with the CDPHE to develop appropriate methods of identifying at-risk areas and to identify appropriate measures to include in long range plans to help ensure continued compliance with federal regulations.

[deleted] Applicable Implementation Plan - The definition has been deleted due to dropping provisions from the  rules related to public participation during the conformity process. See section VI-A(4).

[deleted] Congestion Pricing - The existing section VI-C of the Rules referring to “congestion pricing” is struck in the  rules, making this definition unnecessary.

[deleted] Cooperation - This is a commonly understood term and deemed unnecessary to define in the  rules. In the planning process it refers to the full exchange of information between local, regional, state, and federal agencies so as to promote an informed and consensus-based decision making process.

[added] Corridor Investment Study (CIS) - See “Major Investment Study.” The Corridor Investment Study is a new concept in the transportation planning process introduced in the  rules. It is not required or regulated by federal regulations, but encouraged by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration in discussions with the Department. The CIS definition is identical to that of the MIS (see below) with the exception that it is intended for areas outside metropolitan areas which are regulated by federal regulations. The Department does not intend to interfere with the metropolitan planning process as described in federal regulations, therefore, the provisions for the CIS only apply to areas outside metropolitan areas. The Department believes that this similar, parallel CIS process will be valuable in studying congested corridors outside metropolitan areas where major investments are anticipated and where it is appropriate to examine a full range of mobility alternatives.

The definition uses the broadest terms possible to identify the process without utilizing specifics that could be misinterpreted. Earlier drafts with more specific language were considered and eventually dropped. The earlier proposed definitions attempted to describe under what circumstances the CIS would be required, including the types of projects that should trigger a CIS, a description of the cooperative nature of the process that involves the local and regional planning agencies, the state, transit agencies, federal agencies and others, and what types of alternatives should be considered. Comments received from the STAC, the MPOs, and others indicated that this type of fuller definition is problematic for the  rules in that it could be interpreted by various parties in a number of possibly conflicting ways. Most comments expressed that it is valuable to include a basic description of the CIS in the Rules, but that the Rules are not the appropriate venue to fully describe the process. This contributes to a better overall understanding of the Rules and the planning process. By introducing the concept in the  rules the Department hopes to ensure that the CIS process will become completely integrated with the regional and statewide planning process, preventing the possibility that similar, but parallel, processes could undermine the effectiveness of the comprehensive planning necessary for the transportation system.

Two other scenarios were proposed for the corridor investment study, but not pursued. Those alternatives included: (1) Name all investment studies, both in and out of metropolitan areas, “major investment  studies.” The advantage of this would be that a uniform process could be identified, regulated and implemented for the MIS. This would make it easier to link studies that incorporate both metropolitan and rural areas. The disadvantage is that the MIS under federal regulations is clearly intended for metropolitan areas. Rural areas are concerned that they might be subjected to unnecessarily onerous requirements regarding air quality and the examination of alternative modes which may not be warranted outside metropolitan areas. (2) A second proposal would institute would institute the CIS as an “umbrella” concept that could encompass MIS in metropolitan areas and some appropriate level of study in rural areas. This could allow facilitated linking of intercity corridors. The disadvantage of this approach is that such a state-initiated process could be interpreted as conflicting with the federally regulated metropolitan planning process and could be confusing. It was determined to be preferable to separate the two processes entirely, relying on federal regulations for metropolitan areas where major investments are under consideration and a state process for CIS outside metropolitan areas.

[added] Division Director - This definition is added to avoid repeating the address wherever the Division Director is referenced in the  rules.

[added] Fiscally constrained - The requirement that regional transportation plans be fiscally constrained arises from §43-1-1103(2) C.R.S. which states that regional plans shall both state the fiscal need to maintain mobility and what can reasonably expected to be implemented with available revenues. There has been a historical discrepancy in these figures in that in recent times revenues have not been sufficient to meet all stated or perceived needs. The plans should provide a realistic indication of what may be implemented during the planning period. By inference, the statewide transportation plan, which is based on regional plans should also have a fiscally constrained component. The amount determined by the Commission to be reasonably available from all identified sources during the planning period will be set by the Commission prior to each planning period. This statewide amount is allocated to each of the Department’s six Transportation Regions. This control total is not sub-allocated to the transportation planning regions within each Department Region for several reasons: 1) A geographic distribution of funds may not lead to the funding of the most critical projects from a regional or statewide perspective, and 2) Such a sub-allocation to transportation planning regions based on any identifiable formula such as population or miles of highway could lead to such small amounts available to some planning regions that significant projects could not be funded within a reasonable time frame. A consensus based process during the completion of regional plans involving the CDOT Region and associated planning regions will assign available funds to projects best advancing mobility, maintenance and other policies of the Department regardless of location.

[added] Intermodal - See “Multimodal.” Comments were received from the STAC and the statewide planning team concerning the confusing and inconsistent use of the term "intermodal" and "multimodal." Some commentors preferred the use of one term in certain instances, while others preferred the other term. ISTEA uses both terms, while the regulations implementing ISTEA, Title 23 CFR 450 use “intermodal” exclusively: “The purpose of this subpart is to implement 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 135, which requires each State to carry out a continuing, comprehensive, and intermodal statewide transportation planning process;” and in Title 23 CFR 450.214(b)(1) (1994), “The Plan shall be intermodal...”  Section 43-1-1103(5)(a) C.R.S. (1991) uses only the term "multimodal" when referring to transportation plans and processes: “The state plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following factors: (a) an emphasis on multi-modal transportation considerations; including connectivity between modes of transportation.”

In developing  rules, it is necessary to refer specifically to the legislative, statutory, or regulatory source which use the terms; however, these various sources do not appear to have definitive and universally accepted meanings for these two terms. Therefore, the  rules use the term, as appropriate, as found in the specific originating source for that provision and define the term for the purposes of the Rules only. This definition is taken from Transportation Expressions, a compendium of terms used in the transportation industry and issued in 1995 by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation. This is believed by the Department to be the best, most authoritative and concise source available. The term is given the primary meaning of referring to the interconnections between transportation modes, but may be used interchangeably with "multimodal" as is common throughout the literature and in everyday use.

[deleted] Life Cycle Costing - The existing section VI-C of the Rules referring to "life cycle costing" is struck in the  rules, making this definition unnecessary.

[added] Major Investment Study (MIS) - See “Corridor Investment Study.” Major investment studies (MIS) are required in metropolitan areas under federal regulations in Title 23 CFR 450.318. The  rules include that requirement only to ensure that the MIS process is considered during the regional planning process. The  rules make no requirements beyond what is required in the federal regulations. However, the Department will issue guidelines for the MIS process, developed in cooperation with metropolitan areas, for those studies which the Department is named as the lead agency. Metropolitan areas are also advised, in guidance from the Federal Highway Administration received by the Department June 29, 1996, to develop MIS procedures in cooperation with their planning partners.

Since the term “major investment study” is not concisely defined in the federal regulations, which only generally describe the process, the  definition is drawn from language in Title 23 CFR 45.318 (1993). The  definition uses the broadest terms possible to identify the process consistent with this broad description without utilizing specifics that could be too restrictive or misinterpreted. Earlier drafts with more specific language were considered and eventually dropped. The earlier  definitions attempted to describe under what circumstances the MIS would be required, including the types of projects that should trigger a MIS, a description of the cooperative nature of the process that involves the MPO, the state, transit agencies, federal agencies and others, and what types of alternatives should be considered. Comments received from MPOs, the STAC, and others indicated that this type of fuller definition is problematic for the  rules in that it could be interpreted by various parties in a number of possibly conflicting, ways. The Department also considered simply citing the federal regulation without any additional language. This was thought to be too cryptic for uninformed readers and that it is valuable to include a basic description of the MIS in the  rules. This contributes to a better overall understanding of the Rules and the planning process. By introducing the concept in the  rules, without imposing any additional regulations, the Department hopes to ensure that the MIS process will become completely integrated with the regional and statewide planning process, preventing the possibility that similar, but parallel, processes could undermine the effectiveness of the comprehensive planning necessary for the transportation system.

[added] Major Transportation Investment - This definition was added based on its use in the above definition of “Major Investment Study.” The need for a “major transportation investment” begins the study process. This definition is quoted from Title 23 CFR 450.104 (Definitions) where a fuller description may be found. 

[amended] Metropolitan Area - The original text restated verbatim the definition found in Title 23 Section 134(c). As a matter of simplicity and so as not to raise the possibility of a conflict in interpretation, the  rule refers directly to the federal source.

[amended] Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - The term "as amended" is removed, here and in subsequent language, to clarify that the defined term has only that meaning as defined in the citation at the time the Rules were adopted and not as later amended. According to the Administrative Procedures Act, §24-4-103 (12.5) C.R.S. (1994), rules may not subject regulated activities to legislation or regulations not currently in force.

[added] Multimodal - See “Intermodal.” Comments were received from the STAC and the statewide planning team concerning the confusing and inconsistent use of the term "intermodal" and "multimodal." Some commentors preferred the use of one term in certain instances, while others preferred the other term. ISTEA uses both terms, while §43-1-11 C.R.S. (1991) uses only the term "multimodal" when referring to transportation plans and processes. In developing  rules, it is necessary to refer specifically to the legislative, statutory, or regulatory source; these sources do not appear to have definitive and universally accepted meanings for these two terms. The  rules use the term, as appropriate, as found in the source and define the term for the purposes of this rule, only. This definition is taken from Transportation Expressions, a compendium of terms used in the transportation industry and issued in 1995 by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation. This is believed by the Department to be the best, most authoritative concise source available. The term is given the primary meaning of referring to individual transportation modes working together within a system, but may be used interchangeably with "intermodal" as is common throughout the literature and in everyday use.

[deleted] National Highway System (NHS) - The existing section VI-C of the Rules referring to "National Highway System" is struck in the  rules, making this definition unnecessary.

[amended] Statewide Transportation Plan - The word "intermodal" is struck and replaced with "multimodal" to be consistent with the enabling legislation in §43-1-1103(5) C.R.S. (1991).

[added] Statewide Planning Manager - This definition is added to avoid repeating the address wherever the Statewide Planning Manager is referenced in the  rules.

[added] Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) - This definition is added for information and is consistent with Title 23 USC 135(f)(1991).

[amended] Transportation Commonality - The term "Engineering Districts" was replaced by Transportation Regions by the Department in 1992. The dual reference was included in the original text to clarify the new term. "Transportation Regions" is now in common usage, making it possible to strike the outdated term. "Airsheds," referring to the area downwind of areas producing air pollution, which may be affected by the pollution, and should be considered when planning for transportation, was considered to some extent during the original designation of the transportation planning regions. However, the term has not come into common use, may be confusing, and is secondary to other considerations when designating transportation planning regions and is therefore struck from the  rule.

[added] Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) - This definition is added for information and to inform the reader and is consistent with Title 23 USC 134(h)(1991).

[amended] Transportation Planning Process - The term "project" is added to clarify that the priorities under consideration are considered under a Department procedure termed the Project Priority Programming Process that has been developed subsequent to the initial adoption of the Rules.

[amended] Transportation Planning Organization - "Transportation" is added to the term, here and throughout the  rules, to differentiate it from other types of planning organizations and to remain consistent with other terms in the  rules.
 
[amended] Transportation Planning Region (TPR) - A clarifying reference to the TPR as the geographic area within which a regional transportation plan is developed, and the statutory basis is added.

[deleted] Transportation System Management (TSM) - The existing section VI-C of the Rules referring to "transportation system management" is struck in the  rules, making this definition unnecessary.

[amended] Transportation Systems Planning - Two words have been added. The movement, or access to, services, in addition to people, goods, and information is important to consider when examining the overall performance of the transportation system. Also, transportation “facilities,” along with corridors should be considered in the course of overall system planning. Many individual facilities, such as roads, interchanges and intersections, intermodal transfer points, transit stations, rail lines, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and airports are sub-systems within a corridor. Comprehensive transportation systems planning entails examining the individual parts as well as how those parts function as a whole.

[deleted] Travel Demand Management (TDM) - The existing section VI-C of the Rules referring to "transportation demand management" is struck in the  rules, making this definition unnecessary.

[deleted] Value Capture Pricing - The existing section VI-C of the Rules referring to "value capture pricing" is struck in the  rules, making this definition unnecessary.

IV.	Transportation Planning Regions (TPR)

A.	Transportation Planning Region Boundaries [amended]
5.	The word “Mesa County” is added in paragraph (5) to the name of the Grand Junction TPR. While Grand Junction is the central and largest municipality in Mesa County, the regional transportation plan is created for the entire county as well as the Grand Junction Metropolitan Area which is wholly contained within the county.

B.	Formation of Regional Planning Commissions [added]
Following the initial rulemaking in 1992, the original text of this section was struck by Legislative Legal Services as conflicting with statutes at §30-28-105 C.R.S. (1986) and was never a part of the Rules. The original text allowed a group of signatories to an intergovernmental agreement to form an RPC representing the entire region; however, the statute simply states that parties to an agreement may form an RPC. Thus an RPC, formed pursuant to §30-28-105 C.R.S., may not represent parties, for the purpose of transportation planning, that have not become part of the RPC. 

If a transportation planning region fails to form a regional planning commission for the purpose of conducting transportation planning, or the regional planning commission does not represent all municipal or county entities within the transportation planning region, then the Department is obligated under §43-1-1103 (3)(b) C.R.S. to “incorporate the needs and recommendations of the region in an equitable and consistent manner with other regions of the state.” However, §43 1-106 C.R.S. gives the Commission the authority to cooperate and/or contract with other agencies in the course of executing its duties, including the establishment of separate legal entities. The Department may delegate authority to create a transportation plan to other entities, such as counties, municipalities, metropolitan planning organizations, regional planning commissions, councils of government, or a private contractor. If some municipalities or counties within a TPR fail to sign the intergovernmental agreement creating the regional planning commission, and if the Department believes that the regional planning commission can adequately represent the region, the Department may delegate that authority, by letter, to the regional planning commission. This has, in fact, occurred in the past, where, for instance, in the Central Front Range transportation planning region several small incorporated communities failed to respond to repeated requests to participate in the planning process. It was later determined that no elected office holders in these communities were available to participate; the Department subsequently delegated the planning authority to the Central Front Range regional planning commission and may do so in similar future situations.

The statute at §43-1-1103(1) C.R.S. (1991) states that 20 year plans are required for MPOs and that the formation of regional planning commissions for other transportation planning regions  is optional, but authorized under §30-28-105 C.R.S. (1986). The rule states that these other regional planning commissions must notify the Department within 30 days of formation and include contact information and a copy of the intergovernmental agreement as documentation. This information is necessary for the Department to carry out its duties related to coordination with the regional planning commissions. Such coordination may include correspondence by letter or telephone, the exchange of planning related information, and the coordination of meetings, presentations, and the public participation process.

C.	Redesignation of the Regional Planning Commission [deleted]
This section is struck from the  rule for the same reason explained above in subsection B --it appears to conflict with the statute at §30-28-105 C.R.S. (1986) regulating regional planning commissions. It is further determined that such a paragraph on redesignating regional planning commissions is unnecessary; redesignating a regional planning commission is essentially the same as “forming” such a body in B. above. Therefore, if for any reason, a regional planning commission undergoes reorganization, or adds or subtracts members, then it must notify the Department of all pertinent information within the specified 30 days.

C	Boundary Revision Process [amended]
The original rule stated that the Commission will review transportation planning region boundaries every five years, beginning in 1995. Subsequent reviews would occur in 2000, 2005, etc. Since the first statewide plan was not completed until January 1, 1996, it was not reasonable to review the boundaries during 1995 when the planning process was under way. The next regional plan update process is scheduled to begin in July 1998. In preparation, the Department initiated contacts with the entities identified in section IV-C of the Rules in January 1996. Although some discussion took place concerning various boundaries, no party proposed to change them, and the Department subsequently recommended that no changes be made. The new rule is less specific and states that the review will occur prior to the regional plan update. In addition to the identified counties, municipalities and regional planning commissions, the new rule adds metropolitan planning organizations and Indian Tribes as entities to be contacted regarding the need for a boundary change. The process to change TPR boundaries is intended to be as inclusive as possible. Proposals based on “transportation commonalities” as defined in the Rules from any party will be given appropriate consideration and the Department will make a recommendation to the Commission concerning any such request.

The  rule clarifies that all rulemaking procedures, including amendments to existing rules within the Commission’s authority, are at the discretion of the Commission as stated by the Administrative Procedures Act §24-4-103 (7) (1986). The original text could be construed to mean that the Commission will automatically initiate a rulemaking upon receipt of any request.

The original text also stated that a new regional planning commission resulting from a change in boundaries would need to meet the requirements for representation that had been struck by Legislative Legal Services. This language is now removed and replaced with a requirement that the regional planning commission simply provide the intergovernmental agreement and contact information to the Department as specified in section IV-C. 

D	Transportation Planning Coordination with MPOs [amended]

In addition to regulations concerning long range plans, the Department and MPOs must coordinate activities related to transportation improvement programs and state transportation improvement programs, as well as plans, as described in ISTEA and Title 23 CFR 450.210 (a)(5). This is a matter of clarity and explanation rather than a new rule; no substantive change is intended.

V.	Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee

A.	Duties of the Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee
[amended] This section has been amended to more closely reflect the language and intent of the authorizing statute, §43-1-1104(1)(2) C.R.S. (1991). The new language also clarifies some potentially confusing items. No substantive change is intended with respect to the duty or authority of the STAC. However, the Commission has indicated its preference to maintain a close tie in the Rules with the statute which names three areas of responsibility for the STAC: review and comment on transportation plans and providing advice to the Department on the needs of transportation systems in Colorado. Additionally, this section provides that the STAC will meet as necessary, rather than quarterly as in the original text (in another section). The Department desires that the STAC continue to operate as an autonomous body as intended by the legislature. Such an autonomous role should include establishing its own meeting times, locations, and frequency. This introductory paragraph now contains the above references to provide advice to the Department and to review and comment on a subsequent list of items relating to plans and the planning process.

1.	[amended] The original requirement that the STAC meet quarterly has been moved to the preceding paragraph. This item now combines and incorporates the provisions from two original paragraphs (1 & 2). §43-1-1104(2)C.R.S. outlines STAC responsibilities as advisory to the Department with respect to review and comment on regional transportation plans. The text is changed from reviewing the “progress” of regional plans to reviewing the regional plans, amendments, and updates. This change reflects the fact that initial regional plans are now complete, adopted by their respective oversight bodies and incorporated in the statewide plan. This paragraph is amended to more closely reflect the intent of the state statute at Title 43-1-1104 (2)C.R.S. in that the original text only stated that the STAC would review whether the plans met the provisions of the rules. The Department believes the legislative intent guiding the rules was that the STAC should review the plans themselves and provide comments to the Department. The Department will forward those (advisory) comments to each transportation planning region.

2.	[amended] The original paragraph 3 has been renumbered to number 2 and is clarified that responsibilities of the STAC are advisory and limited to “transportation related” matters pursuant to Title 43-1-1104 (2) C.R.S; the STAC has no express authority under either the statute or the Rules over other matters that may arise.

3.	[amended] The original paragraph 4 has been renumbered to number 3. This paragraph provides for review and comment by the STAC on the integration and consolidation of regional plans into the statewide plan. Although the statute expressly asks the STAC to review regional plans, it is silent on the review of the statewide plan. However, given that the comprehensive statewide plan is to be integrated and consolidated from regional plans pursuant to §43-1-1103(5)C.R.S. and that the Department has specific responsibilities with respect to public participation and availability of plans for review by partnering agencies in Title 23 Part 450.212 CFR, the STAC is an appropriate entity to provide review of the statewide plan.

4.	[amended] The original paragraph 5 has been renumbered to number 4 and  is amended to reflect that transportation system needs in Colorado include “services” as well as “people, goods, and information.” This reflects the philosophy developed in the statewide plan that transportation involves more than moving vehicles from one point to another, but also includes the need of individuals to have access to those things which support an expected quality of life. The interaction of transportation infrastructure with those aspects may have a positive cost-benefit where the need for expensive investments may be mitigated by considering creative interactions. As a forum for regional transportation issues, the STAC’s advice should include “interregional” as well as “statewide” solutions, pursuant to Section 43-1-1104 (2) C.R.S. which gives the opportunity to the STAC to provide “advice to the Department on the needs of the transportation system in Colorado.”

5.	[amended] The original paragraph 6 has been renumbered to number 5 and adds “balance” to the concept of “system continuity” considered by the STAC when providing advice to the Department. “Balance” reflects the Department’s commitment to the goals expressed in Section 43-1-1103(5)(a)&(b) C.R.S. that the plan emphasize multimodal considerations and coordination with local land use planning and the requirement in Section 43-1-1103(1)(d) C.R.S. that the plans consider environmental, social, and economic impacts. All these requirements emphasized in the statute imply the need to “balance” sometimes competing interests to identify the best overall available transportation strategies for the future. The STAC’s authority to make such recommendations is in Section 43-1-1104 (2) C.R.S.

6.	[added] Paragraph 6 adds a new duty for the STAC to include commenting on proposed transportation planning region boundary changes. This is consistent with the committee’s duty to comment on regional transportation plans in Section 43-1-1104(2) C.R.S.; since the transportation planning regions form the basis for regional transportation plans, the STAC should review and comment on TPR boundaries and proposed changes.

B.	Notification of Membership

[amended] This subsection gives the two tribal nations located within Colorado non-voting membership in the STAC. The statute at §43-1-1104 (1) states that the STAC shall be composed of one representative from each transportation planning region. Both tribal reservations in Colorado are wholly within the Southwest Transportation Planning Region which includes those needs within the regional transportation plan. However, based on language in ISTEA requiring coordination of the statewide plan with Indian tribes and the Secretary of the Interior ( Title 23 Section 135(e) USC) the Department concurs that it is appropriate to allow the tribes a seat on the STAC. No conflict between the  rules and the state or federal legislation is perceived by the Department since the tribes are given non-voting status. The tribes have participated, at the STAC’s invitation, as a matter of course since the committee’s inception. It is especially important to coordinate with the tribes’ planning processes given that certain funding mechanisms within the Department of Interior/Bureau of Indian Affairs are available for tribal use apart from the FHWA and FTA funding mechanisms required by ISTEA to be included in the transportation planning process. The fully coordinated process intended by ISTEA is supported by this provision. The representative of the Southern Ute Tribe stated at the April 2, 1997 STAC meeting that he is comfortable with their representation in the Southwest Transportation Planning Region, appreciates the opportunity to participate in the meetings and feels no need to change their status on the STAC.

STAC members should notify the Department of electronic mail addresses (if available) in addition to other traditional communication forms. The potential cost and time savings of this relatively new tool for communicating and transmitting documents is significant. Additionally, the original Rules specified a date for transportation planning regions to notify the Department of their STAC representative. That date, now passed, has been changed to require notification within 30 days.

The provision for membership changes to be transmitted to the Department is struck since it is considered to be covered under the basic provision for notification.

C.	Administration of Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee
[amended] The requirement for the STAC to meet at least quarterly is deleted. Reference to the frequency of STAC meetings is moved to subsection A, above.

VI.	Development of Regional and Statewide Transportation Plans

[added] A new paragraph has been added to clarify that both the Department and transportation planning organizations are subject to the provisions from the federal rule, Title 23 Part 450 that have been incorporated in the Rules. These incorporated sections provide for certain factors to be considered in the plans, coordination between affected agencies, public participation, major investment studies, and other aspects. Since the statewide plan depends to a large extent on the regional plans for its content, accuracy, and participatory elements it is necessary for the regional plans to incorporate a similar planning process so as to promote consistency, broad base of acceptance, and approval at the federal level.

A.	Public Participation
This subsection is amended to clarify the respective roles of the Department, MPOs, and regional planning commissions during the transportation planning process, to include both the statewide and regional processes.

1.	[added] Statewide Plans and Programs - Federal regulations at Title 23 CFR 450.210 (Coordination) and 450.212 (Public Involvement) explicitly state that the Department must cooperate with local and regional transportation planning organizations in ensuring that the public participation provisions in those sections are carried out during the development of statewide plans and programs. In response to a provision in Title 23 CFR 450.212(f) requiring states to publish public participation procedures, the Department published the “Guidelines for Public Involvement in Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming” on June 15, 1994. These guidelines provide comprehensive detail on how the Department conducts the public participation process specified in the  rules. The guidelines include Public Involvement Goals; methods to facilitate two-way communication between the Department and the public; specific key decision points at which public input will be sought; strategies for soliciting input from diverse interest groups; a plan for comprehensive use of appropriate available media; strategies to involve those traditionally under served by transportation; a process to continuously evaluate and improve public participation in Colorado; guidelines for the format of various meeting types; and, specific guidelines for responding to issues raised by interested parties. These guidelines are designed to communicate to the public the methods employed by the Department in carrying out its duties specified in the federal regulations.

2.	[added] MPO Plans and Programs - Title 23 CFR 450.316(b) explicitly states that MPOs are responsible for carrying out the required public participation outlined in Title 23 CFR 450.316(a)&(b) with regard to planning and programming within metropolitan areas. MPOs must also coordinate with state public participation processes wherever possible pursuant to Title 23 CFR 450.316(b)(1)(xi) in order “to enhance public consideration of the issues, plans, and programs and reduce redundancies and cost”. The Department will coordinate with MPOs when conducting public involvement activities specifically related to statewide plans and programs. In response to comments from MPO representatives raising concerns about requiring additional public participation, for the purposes of the Rules, in addition to what is already required by the above federal regulations, language is added to clarify that the federally required process may, by agreement of the state and the MPO, satisfy the requirements of this section as stated in Title 23 CFR  450.212(b).

3.	[added] Non-MPO Transportation Planning Regions - This section clarifies that a regional planning commission, having undertaken the optional planning process (refer to Section 43-1-1103(1) C.R.S.), maintains ultimate responsibility for the plan, including its development and adoption. Since the planning process is to be carried out under rules and regulations adopted by the Commission (§43-1-1103(5) C.R.S.) and the Rules must be consistent with both state and federal requirements, including public participation requirements at Title 23 CFR 450.212 , those state and federal regulations are passed on to the regional planning commission. The Department will continue to coordinate with non-MPO TPRs when conducting public involvement activities pursuant to Title 23 CFR 450.210.

In the past, the Department has allocated funds to each transportation planning region to facilitate completing the plans, including carrying out provisions related to public involvement. These funds, based on a formula combining population and land area, have ranged from about $20,000 to $50,000 for actual plan development in 1993 and about $6,000 per year thereafter to support public involvement and STAC related travel expenses. The regional planning commissions may utilize these funds either to employ staff or retain a consultant to perform these activities. To the extent that these funds are made available as part of the Department’s annual budgeting process, the Department intends to continue providing federal State Planning and Research funds on a contract basis to regional planning commissions in support of the regional transportation planning process. The Rules do not obligate the Department to future funding commitments. Any regional planning commission may decline the opportunity to update its plan due to the absence of sufficient funds provided by the state, or for any other reason, in which case the Department is obligated to include consideration of the needs of the region when developing the statewide plan, pursuant to §43-1-1103 (3)(b) C.R.S., which states that the Department shall include the needs of all areas of the state in the statewide plan in an equitable and consistent manner, and Title 23 CFR 450.208 (5) which states that the needs of non-metropolitan areas shall be included in the statewide plan through a process that includes consultation with local elected officials. Planning regions are encouraged to supplement planning funds provided by the Department with local funds.

Since the state depends to a large extent on the regional transportation planning process for public involvement at the local level, the Department and regional planning commissions receiving State Planning and Research funds to conduct regional planning should determine through the contracting process which public involvement responsibilities during the plan development should be the responsibility of the Department and which the responsibility of the regional planning commission. The Department does not have sufficient staff to provide these services to each of the 15 transportation planning regions, but does anticipate making funds available for this purpose and providing assistance to the regional planning commissions commensurate with the Department’s resources.

4.	[amended] To eliminate the misperception in Section VI-A paragraph 4  that some duplication of effort in public participation may be required, language is added to state that the list of activities in subparagraphs “a-g” must be carried out in the course of both regional and statewide planning, and that the responsibility should be clearly delineated and assigned as part of the process. Further direction concerning public participation is contained in “Guidelines for Public Involvement in Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming,” released by the Department June 15, 1994.

A.&B.	[amended] The words “regional and state” are removed; the transportation planning process as described refers to both the regional and state process regulations.

c.	[amended] The requirement to issue press releases and public service announcements is struck as being too restrictive as to the means of notifying the public of planning related activities. Rather, reasonably available and appropriate means of contacting the public should be utilized.

d.	[amended] Changes to language referring to under-served segments of the population are made only for grammatical clarity; no substantive change in meaning is intended.

f(2)	[amended] The reference to “preferred and constrained” plans is struck as confusing; these terms are not defined in the Rules. Additional guidance concerning “preferred and constrained” plans will be given by the Department prior to the next plan update cycle. The intent of the rule is to subject all plans, or portions of plans, developed under this process to appropriate public participation.

f(3)	[amended] The sentence stating the requirement for MPOs to be responsible for TIP public involvement activities is struck from the Rules, since it is already an existing federal rule. The state plays only a cooperative role in the development of transportation improvement programs (TIPs) within metropolitan areas; that is, the MPO is identified as the lead agency, having primary responsibility for those activities. However, consistent with Title 23 CFR 450.210(a)(2), the state will provide review and comment opportunities for the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) to all areas of the state, including those parts of the STIP relevant to areas within  MPO jurisdiction. No need exists here to restate existing federal regulations for MPOs and TIP development.

7.	[deleted] The provision related to public participation for project level conformity determination required by the Clean Air Act or the National Environmental Policy Act has been struck from the Rules. Several reasons led to this determination: 1) The existing provision makes no new requirements on the Department or other transportation planning organizations beyond what is already required in the federal legislation and regulations; 2) Current federal regulations in Title 40 Parts 51 and 93, implementing federal air quality regulations are in the process of being revised; revised rules were proposed in 1996 and are expected to be finalized during the summer of 1997 meaning that any rules adopted by the Department based on the federal rules would be outdated nearly immediately upon adoption; 3) The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment expects to implement rules (as expected to be required by the federal rules) governing air quality and the State Implementation Program (SIP) following the adoption of the federal rules; the Department will work with Health to integrate transportation related air quality provisions with a comprehensive program governing all types of emissions.

It is premature to develop transportation/air quality related provisions until regulations from other implementing agencies are in place. At that time, the Department may, in cooperation with Department of Health, amend the Rules to include appropriate air quality conformity public participation requirements.

The official notice of this rulemaking, dated June 10, 1997 specified that Title 40 Part 51 Subpart F U.S.C. would be incorporated by reference in the  rule. The current  rules do not contain any reference to Title 40 and therefore the need to incorporate any part of it became unnecessary. Title 40 is not part of the rule.

g.	[amended] The words “The Department and the Planning Organizations shall” are redundant and struck from the rule.

5.	[amended] A heading is added to the paragraph to clarify the subject matter. The words “at their respective public meetings or” are struck as being too restrictive; the transportation planning organizations and the Department should respond to significant issues raised during the review and comment period, not just at public meetings. A detailed discussion of the Department’s methods of responding to comments, and when written responses are appropriate is found in “Guidelines for Public Involvement in Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming” released by the Department June 15, 1994. 

[deleted The remainder of the subsection is struck from the  rule, since it is redundant to preceding amended paragraphs.

B.	State Transportation Policy [deleted]
This entire subsection is struck from the  rule. While the Commission has adopted Statewide Transportation Policies, dated April 21, 1994, the adopted policies are intended as operational guidance to the Department rather than to external transportation planning organizations. By their nature, these policies are useful in guiding the Department’s planning process, not those of regional planning commissions. 

CB Transportation Systems Planning
[amended] The word “intermodal” is inserted in the first sentence to reflect the intent of both ISTEA and §43-1-1101 C.R.S. Title 23 CFR 450.104 defines “Statewide Transportation Plan” as “the official statewide, intermodal transportation plan that is developed through the statewide transportation planning process.” §43-1-1102(8) C.R.S. defines “State Plan” as “the comprehensive statewide transportation plan formed by the commission pursuant to the provision of §43-1-1103(5).” That section refers, in subparagraph (a) to “An emphasis on multi-modal transportation consideration, including the connectivity between modes of transportation.” For the purpose of this section, “intermodal” is used in its broadest sense, as defined in Section III to mean both “the provision of connections between different transportation modes” and “a comprehensive view of transportation modes which work together to provide the user with the best choices of service.” Since the words are not clearly defined in either the federal regulations or the state legislation, they are assumed to be nearly synonymous, with no intended difference of meaning. See definitions of “intermodal” and “multimodal” in Section III of the Rules. The new word “approach” is added as a clarification, meaning that “transportation systems planning” is not a specific methodology, but is a means of considering individual transportation improvements in the context of their relationships to the overall system. Those relationships should include all relevant aspects, such as how improvements in one mode may positively or negatively affect another, how investments in one area may affect the availability of funds for other areas, the positive or negative effects on the environment or economic development, interconnectivity between modes or regions, or system wide effects. A transportation systems planning approach recognizes the need for plans to include the entire system functioning as a unit rather than as individual parts.

1.	[amended] The original list of 17 factors to be considered in the planning process was a composite of factors from Title 23 USC Parts 134 & 135 and §43-1-1103(5) C.R.S. These factors, while similar in intent, vary somewhat in use of specific terms, making it difficult to clearly reflect the intended ideas. It was found to be unnecessary to repeat the language already in statute and therefore, the  rule strikes the 17 factors, simply stating that the factors in the source legislation must be addressed in both regional and statewide transportation plans. Further discussion of these planning factors will be included in guidelines issued by the Department prior to the beginning of the next planning cycle.

2.	[added] This new paragraph states that, in the course of comprehensive planning by the Department or regional planning commissions, the results of major investment studies or corridor investment studies that have been completed must be considered, and where such a study may be needed in the future that information should also be included in the plan. This is not a mandate to conduct a study, nor is the rule intended to regulate how such studies are performed. Rather, the only mandate created in the Rules is that if such a study is done, the results must be included in the long range planning process.

Major investment studies are required and guided by federal regulations at Title 23 CFR 450.318 as part of the metropolitan planning process. The Rules provide that corridor investment studies may be performed outside metropolitan areas, and if so, will be considered pursuant to guidelines to be developed by the Department at a later date. The reference to the studies is included in the  rules only to ensure that the results of such studies are considered in the planning process and do not proceed as a separate, possibly conflicting process. The Department wishes to avoid the potential situation in which, if a study is conducted separately from the planning process described in the Rules, a planning organization could approach the Department for funding that could be drawn from prior commitments made during the planning process. This could be construed as unfair to planning organizations that have participated in the process in good faith that their priorities have been considered in the context of all requests, and that changes to decisions made under the process will be subject to the public participation process. All planning processes should be fully integrated. In addition, identifying where such studies may be needed in the future is a logical extension of the long-range planning process, designed to determine the transportation needs for at least the next twenty years.

DC	Regional Transportation Plans
1.	[amended] “Format” is changed to “Content” to more accurately reflect the subsequent list of elements to be included in the plan. Regional transportation plans are intended to be the product of the transportation planning region and the regional planning commission representing it. The specified content and any additional items deemed important by the regional planning commission should also be included in the plan. The list of minimum requirements is included in the  rules to provide a common group of elements to be used by the state when integrating the regional plans into the statewide plan.

a.	[amended] “System” is added to broaden the planning function to include more than individual facilities such as road segments, bridges, transit stations, etc. and to encourage the plans to evaluate networks of individual facilities and how they may, or should, interact. The words “capital and operating” are added to clarify that the maintenance of investments is a significant cost above and beyond the original capital investment. Such operating costs should be estimated in the preferred plan so as to more accurately portray long term needs. Maintenance and operating costs are included in the statewide plan as a high priority program. The costs in the statewide plan are based in part on regional estimates of future maintenance and operating costs and in part on Department estimates of future maintenance and operating costs for statewide programs that may be beyond regional jurisdiction. Such statewide programs may include highway maintenance and operations, highway surface condition, bridge program, transit operating and capital replacement costs, safety programs, rest areas, noise barriers, enhancement program, Intelligent Transportation Programs, and shoulder improvements.

b.	[amended] The second usage of “fiscally constrained plan” is struck as redundant. “To be available” is added to more accurately reflect Title 23 USC 135(f)(2) and current common usage. “Revenues reasonably expected to be available” include existing and proposed revenue sources available for transportation use including local, state, federal, and private sources. No substantive change is intended.

c.	[amended] “Identified” is struck from the  rule and replaced by “referenced” since the list of planning factors has been struck and replaced with references to the federal and state legislative sources. The factors are described in §43-1-1103(5) C.R.S.; Title 23 USC 134(f); and Title 23 USC 135(c).

d.	[amended] The source for this rule, §43-1-1103(1)(d) C.R.S., does not specify the extent to which the social, environmental, energy, and economic impacts should be evaluated. Since “analysis” has a connotation of significant or technical evaluation, it is replaced with “assessment” meaning that the evaluation may be a textual discussion of impacts, as appropriate. The level of assessment could include a technical analysis, if appropriate, but is not required by this provision.

e.	[added] This new subparagraph asks that, where major investment studies or corridor investment studies have been completed, the estimated costs of implementing their results should be included. This again is to insure that planning processes are fully integrated and that all relevant material becomes a part of the plan. The Rules do not regulate when, where, or how such studies may be conducted, but rather that if such studies are completed or anticipated that they are utilized in the planning process. Major Investment Studies are a part of the metropolitan planning process and regulated by Title 23 CFR 450.318. Corridor investment studies, which may be conducted outside metropolitan areas, are not required by this  rule beyond including the results of the studies in the long range plan.

f.	[amended] During the first cycle of the planning process, this original subsection, requiring the plans to be prioritized in three blocks of time, was met with varying degrees of success among the transportation planning regions. The need for a fiscally constrained plan is now clearly identified and must list the region’s priority projects in order, rather than in time blocks. Such prioritization will enable the Department to ensure that regional priorities are included in the statewide plan. The prioritized plan should include, to a degree, both the “fiscally constrained or priority plan” and the “preferred or long range needs plan.” More detail with respect to prioritization in the fiscally constrained plan is suggested, while a lesser degree of detail is suggested in the preferred plan.  Further guidance on methods to prioritize regional plans will be made available to regions prior to the planning process.

h.	[amended] The word “process” is added as clarification that public participation is an ongoing series of events and not a “point-in-time” occurrence. It must be carried out pursuant to section VI-A of the  rules and Title 23 CFR 450.212, the federal rule describing public participation in the planning process.

i.	[amended] The first phrase is struck as a matter of form, and “acceptance” is replaced with the stronger term “adoption”, meaning that the planning organization has adopted or taken ownership of the plan and intends to utilize it as a guiding document for the region. This rule is necessary to ensure that the plan submitted for inclusion in the statewide plan is the officially recognized plan of the transportation planning region and has been developed under the process specified in the  rules.

2.	[amended] The paragraph title “Schedule for Regional Transportation Plans” is replaced with the more accurate “Products and Reviews” describing what products will be delivered to the state, the time line, and how each component will be reviewed.

a.	[amended] The original text provided for a single, specific due date for draft regional transportation plans. Draft plans should be complete to the extent that all major portions of the plan are included and available for review and comment but need not be in final form. The  rule establishes a specific date for the next update and, then, every six years thereafter. No provisions in federal or state legislation, regulation or guidance establish a time frame for updates to the statewide plan, except that Title 23 CFR 450.214(e) specifies that the statewide plan “shall be continually evaluated and periodically updated as appropriate...” However, in regard to metropolitan plans, Title 23 CFR 450.322(a) states that in metropolitan nonattainment and maintenance areas the plan must be reviewed and updated at least triennially and in metropolitan attainment areas at least every five years. The six year time frame for updating the statewide plan is derived from the original FHWA guidance that state plans were expected to be completed by January 1, 1995. No amendments to the STIP were allowed until a long range statewide plan was in place. The Department completed its first plan one year later on January 1, 1996, temporarily delaying its ability to amend the STIP. The new six year time frame is also expected to be a better match with the Department’s six year STIP, which is updated every two years. Since metropolitan areas must produce long range plans on a federally regulated schedule that varies according to air quality designation, it became problematic to attempt to require all plans to be due simultaneously. To compensate, metropolitan areas may submit the latest adopted version of the long range plan for integration and consolidation with the statewide plan. In the event that a metropolitan plan is completed after the due date for the regional plans and before the completion of the statewide plan, the Department will integrate the updated metropolitan plan to the extent possible.

b.	[amended] A reference to Section V-A paragraph 3 on the statewide transportation advisory committee is added to clarify that the STAC review of regional plans has a statutory basis. Comments by the statewide transportation advisory committee on regional plans remain advisory, will be made directly to the Department and forwarded to the responsible regional planning commission. Additionally, the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments raised concerns that long range plans in metropolitan areas must be completed on a schedule specified in Title 23 USC Part 450.322 (a) and that their schedule may not coincide with the proposed six year update cycle for the statewide plan. Metropolitan non-attainment areas must complete a plan every three years, while metropolitan maintenance areas must complete a plan every five years. The memo asked for clarification in the rules that such updated plans could be amended into the statewide plan on a timely basis, allowing consistency between plans, metropolitan transportation improvement programs and the statewide transportation improvement program. Such consistency is required before projects may move into programming and implementation phases. A new sentence has been added to clarify that such updated metropolitan plans shall be submitted to the Department at the draft stage for review by the Department and the STAC as part of the regular amendment process. The Commission may amend the statewide plan to include metropolitan updates upon advice from the Department. Rather than include all MPO plans automatically in the statewide plan, this review process maintains the integrity of the statewide plan as an official document of the Transportation Commission.

c.	[amended] See (a) above. The original text provided for a single, specific due date for final regional transportation plans. Final plans should be complete with respect to the Rules and in final form. The  rule establishes a specific date for the next update and, then, every six years thereafter. No provisions in federal or state legislation, regulation or guidance establish a time frame for updates to the statewide plan, except that Title 23 CFR 450.214(e) specifies that the statewide plan “shall be continually evaluated and periodically updated as appropriate...” However, Title 23 CFR 450.322(a) states that in metropolitan nonattainment and maintenance areas the plan must be reviewed and updated at least triennially and in metropolitan attainment areas at least every five years. The six year time frame for updating the statewide plan is derived from the original FHWA guidance that state plans were expected to be completed by January 1, 1995. No amendments to the STIP were allowed until a long range statewide plan was in place. The Department completed its first plan one year later on January 1, 1996, temporarily delaying its ability to amend the STIP. The new six year time frame is also expected to be a better match with the Department’s six year STIP, which is updated every two years. Since metropolitan areas must produce long range plans on a federally regulated schedule that varies according to air quality designation, it became problematic to attempt to require all plans due simultaneously. To compensate, metropolitan areas may submit the latest adopted version of the long range plan for integration and consolidation with the statewide plan. In the event that a metropolitan plan is completed after the due date for the regional plan and before the completion of the statewide plan, the Department will integrate the metropolitan plan to the extent possible.

d.	[amended] The Department will determine, after the opportunity for STAC review and comment, if a regional transportation plan is adequate with respect to the Rules, and may choose not to include that region’s plan in the statewide plan until any identified issues are resolved. The plans will be reviewed by the STAC to determine if the elements specified in the  rules are incorporated and adequate. In all cases, the STAC acts as an advisory body to the Department; its reviews and comments are not binding on any party. However, its composition as a representative statewide body of involved officials is a valuable source of critical review. MPOs have expressed some dissatisfaction with the possibility that an external body such as the STAC could review its plan, find it lacking and then recommend revisions. Some comments have addressed the possibility that this usurps the authority of the MPO itself; however, the MPO still has the responsibility and authority to approve or amend its plan at its discretion. The Department’s position is that any views expressed by the STAC remain recommendations only and are advisory. In reality, the historically thorough plans completed by metropolitan areas are unlikely to evoke recommendations  from the STAC except in matters of interregional or statewide concern. See Title 23 CFR 450.208 (a) (21) which describes the coordination of metropolitan area plans and the statewide plan “as necessary to ensure connectivity within transportation systems” and Title 23 CFR 450.214 (4) also requiring the coordination of metropolitan area plans and the statewide plan.

The Department proposes to reject a regional transportation plan (for the purposes of integration with the statewide plan) for either incompletely or inadequately addressing the provisions of the Rules. This is necessary to insure a measure of uniformity in form, content, and detail among the plans that better enables their unbiased integration.

Additionally, the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments raised concerns that long range plans in metropolitan areas must be completed on a schedule specified in Title 23 USC Part 450.322 (a) and that their schedule may not coincide with the proposed six year update cycle for the statewide plan. Metropolitan non-attainment areas must complete a plan every three years, while metropolitan maintenance areas must complete a plan every five years. The memo asked for clarification in the rules that such updated plans could be amended into the statewide plan on a timely basis, allowing consistency between plans, metropolitan transportation improvement programs and the statewide transportation improvement program. Such consistency is required before projects may move into programming and implementation phases. A new sentence has been added to clarify that such updated metropolitan plans shall be submitted to the Department when final for review by the Department and the STAC as part of the regular amendment process. The Commission may amend the statewide plan to include metropolitan updates upon advice from the Department. Rather than include all MPO plans automatically in the statewide plan, this review process maintains the integrity of the statewide plan as an official document of the Transportation Commission.

[deleted] The sentence requiring initial regional transportation plans to cover the period 1995 to 2015 is now moot and therefore struck from the  rules.

D.	Air Quality At-Risk Areas [added]

This new subsection represents the Department’s requirements concerning “air quality at-risk areas.” The provisions are intended to assist areas in determining their level of risk in becoming a federally designated nonattainment area. Such designations carry significant requirements specified in federal legislation and regulations, including a more stringent planning process and limits on certain types of transportation projects. It is to the advantage of such areas, as well as the Department and the state’s residents, to attempt to avoid that designation. To that end, the Commission adopted the Department Policy on Air Quality - Policy Directive No. 1901.0 - on January 19, 1995 outlining strategies concerning, among other things, air quality at-risk areas. In addition, the Department developed its Air Quality Action Plan, also in January 1995, in response to, and in support of, the policy directive. The plan consists of operating policies and a three year implementation program to carry out the Statewide Transportation Policies, adopted April 21, 1994. Strategy 4 in the Air Quality Action Plan states that the Department will work with the CDPHE to identify at-risk areas and to assist in implementing voluntary strategies to reduce the risks of unhealthy air in those areas and prevent new violations of air quality standards. Title 23 CFR 450.208 (11) also requires the consideration of the effect of transportation on the environment.

The provisions in this section pertain only to small particulate matter such as PM10 and PM2.5 and not other pollutants such as Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Nitrous Oxide, or Volatile Organic Compounds which are also regulated by the Clean Air Act Amendments and 40 CFR Part 51. These other pollutants are primarily a concern in metropolitan nonattainment areas, whereas small particulates are also of concern in several small urban areas. The Department’s goal with this provision is to assist these small urban areas by identifying which have the potential to become federally designated nonattainment areas for small particulates.

Regional transportation plans should include certain information:
1.	[added] If the Department, in cooperation with the CDPHE, has identified any area within the region as “at-risk” then that information should be included in the plan. The criteria used to designate such areas will be identified in guidelines to be issued prior to the next planning process. Such identification should include a description of the extent of the problem and its history.
2.	[added] The plan should address whether small particulate matter is expected to increase during the planning period. Several comments were received expressing concern that technical analyses of projected levels of pollution are beyond the resources of the rural areas typically expected to receive this designation, and unnecessary; such quantitative analysis should be expected of designated nonattainment areas, but not at-risk areas. To address that concern, the resulting language, requires “either a qualitative or quantitative” analysis. A qualitative analysis is intended to mean that the analysis, or assessment, could be made at the policy level, using such information as is available about potential community growth, development patterns and the resulting growth in traffic, the relationship of transportation related and non-transportation related sources or contributors to particulates, geography, weather patterns, and other items affecting the area’s air quality.
3.	[added] If the assessment in (2) above indicates an expected increase in particulates, the regional transportation plan should recommend measures to reduce them and help prevent the area being designated nonattainment, but such measures are voluntary. Guidelines for implementing such control strategies will be discussed in guidelines issued by the Department prior to the next planning process. The Department and the CDPHE will work with air quality at-risk areas to develop appropriate voluntary control strategies to include in the regional plan as stated in Policy Directive 1901.0 - Strategy 4.

E.	Statewide Transportation Plan
[amended] The words “and amending” are added to indicate that the provisions of this subsection of the Rules apply both to developing and amending the statewide transportation plan.

1.	The Statewide Transportation Plan
1.	
a.	[amended] The word “synthesizing” from the original text was thought to be unclear in meaning and is changed to “integrate and consolidate” to describe the process of combining the regional transportation plans and other statewide needs into a comprehensive statewide plan and in order to be consistent with §43-1-1103(5) C.R.S. In addition, “intermodal” is changed to “multimodal,” also to be more consistent with §43-1-1103(5)(a) C.R.S. which calls for an emphasis on “multimodal” transportation. The meaning in this case is intended to reflect the wider sense of the term, as described in section III of the Rules.

e.	[added] The STAC subcommittee on the Rules expressed concerns that the statewide planning process not interfere with the federally mandated and regulated metropolitan planning process, pursuant to Title 23 CFR 450.210 (b)(4)&(c)(1). This new provision restates federal regulations at Title 23 CFR 450.214 and state statutes at §43-1-1105 C.R.S. to that effect and informs the reader of the Department’s intent to foster a cooperative process. The Department believes that no provisions in the  rules conflict with the federal metropolitan process.

2.	Content of the Statewide Plan
[amended] “Format” is changed to “Content” to more accurately reflect the subsequent list of elements to be included in the plan. Other elements, in addition to those required in regional transportation plans, that may be appropriate for the statewide plan include costs pertaining to maintenance and operations; administration; statewide programs such as safety and rest areas; statewide analysis of the transportation system; and other programs or projects of statewide interest beyond the scope of individual regional plans. Similar to regional planning commissions, the Transportation Commission has the authority to approve the statewide plan, pursuant to §43-1-106 (8) C.R.S. - Duties of the Commission.

h.	[deleted] The subparagraph concerning management systems has been struck from the  rule following guidance from the FHWA that these systems are optional, with certain exceptions. Title 23 CFR 500.104 (1997) gives states the option of developing the previously required management systems, except that transportation management areas (metropolitan areas over 200,000 population) must still implement a congestion management system. The Rules have no bearing on this provision and metropolitan areas are still bound by all federal regulations. In addition, pursuant to that federal regulation, states must continue to develop, establish and implement a traffic monitoring system. The Department intends to keep developing the traffic monitoring management system as well as some additional components that are not required. The output from all implemented systems will be considered and utilized during the planning process, but, given the scaled-back federal requirements, the Department no longer believes it is necessary to include related provisions in the Rules.

3.	Schedule for Statewide Transportation Plan Development
1.	
[amended] The  rule establishes a specific date for the next statewide plan update, January 1, 2001, and every six years thereafter. No provisions in federal or state legislation, regulation or guidance establish a specific time frame for updates to the statewide plan, except that Title 23 CFR 450.214(e) states that the statewide plan “shall be continually evaluated and periodically updated as appropriate...” The Department believes that the  due date is necessary and appropriate to establish regular, timely, and consistent updates to existing plans, allowing the state to remain current on its assessment of long range transportation needs within Colorado. However, Title 23 CFR 450.322(a) states that in metropolitan nonattainment and maintenance areas the plan must be reviewed and updated at least triennially and in metropolitan attainment areas at least every five years. While not specified in the Rules, those areas must continue to comply with the federal rule. The six year time frame for updating the statewide plan stems from the original FHWA guidance that state plans were expected to be completed by January 1, 1995. The Department completed its first plan one year later on January 1, 1996. The new six year time frame is also expected to be a better match with the Department’s six year statewide transportation improvement program, which is updated every two years.

VII.	Updates to Regional and Statewide Transportation Plans

A.	Plan Update Process
[amended] This subsection provides for the update of the regional and statewide plans. There is no federal requirement regarding updates to the statewide plan, except that it must be updated on a periodic basis pursuant to Title 23 CFR 450.214 (e). An update differs from an amendment in that this major process is undertaken every six years to substantially produce a new plan and which should, in most cases, be based on the previous plan to the extent appropriate.  The update process must follow the provisions in section VI outlining the required elements. Amendments are more minor adjustments to an existing plan that may be made in intervening years between the major updates.

B.	Notice by Department of Plan Update Cycle
[amended] Language concerning the previous five year update cycle has been struck from the  rules consistent with the  revision to Section VI-E(3) that the plan will be updated every six years. The Department encourages all transportation planning regions to establish a regional planning commission for the purpose of transportation planning and will notify municipalities and counties of such opportunity to ensure that all appropriate parties have the opportunity to participate, pursuant to Title 23 CFR 450.210 (a)(5) concerning state coordination with local governments. Remaining  changes to this subsection are of a clarifying nature and no substantial change is intended.

C.	Notice from RPCs of Intent to Update a RTP
[amended] This subsection was revised to clarify the existing provisions. No substantive change is intended except as explained below. This subsection describes how and when newly formed or planned regional planning commissions will notify the Department of intent to produce a regional transportation plan. The Department needs this information so that, if no regional planning commission will be formed, it can begin work in a timely way to include the needs of the area in the statewide plan pursuant to §43-1-1103(3)(a) C.R.S. and Title 23 CFR Part 450.208(5). The 45 day time period is considered adequate to query possible participants by mail and to allow sufficient time for consultation within the transportation planning region and a response by mail. Further delay than the specified 45 days in beginning such work may leave the Department with insufficient time to carry out an appropriate level of planning. 

D.	Department Responsibility for Planning in TPRs that Do Not Have a Regional Planning Commission
A.	
[added] The Department will consider the needs of all regions of the state in the statewide plan pursuant to §43-1-1103(3) C.R.S. In addition, Title 23 U.S.C. 135(e) and Title 23 CFR  Part 450.208(5) specify that the state plan will be for all areas of the state. If a TPR elects not to form a regional planning commission for the purpose of creating a regional transportation plan, the Department must have a reasonable period of time to begin considering those needs in preparation for the statewide plan. If no notice has been received within 45 days, as specified in subsection C above, the Department will consider that no regional planning commission will be formed and that the Department must fulfill its responsibilities by conducting appropriate planning within the transportation planning region.

VIII.	Amendments to the Regional and Statewide Transportation Plans

The amendment process described in this section VIII refers to a cooperative process to amend either regional or state plans. Amendments may only be  based on the same planning factors used to develop the original plan, as identified in section VI-B of the  rules. Significant changes might include population or economic growth substantially different than original projections including a consideration of the extent that those changes affect the proposed transportation system. The transportation planning organization should evaluate any changes in transportation systems planning to determine if they require changes to the projects listed in the plan.

A.	Basis for Transportation Plan Amendments
[amended] Clarifying language has been added; no substantive change is intended except for the addition of specific criteria that automatically trigger the amendment process. The criteria are specific to protect the priority of existing plan components. The priorities described in the existing plan should not be compromised except upon full consideration of all participants. The reality of competing demands for limited resources indicates that any changes to the plan, which form the pool of needs from which projects are chosen for implementation, must go through the same competitive planning process as the original plan.

1.	New Project
[added] Additions to a plan could cause existing projects to be dropped from the plan, which must be approved by all affected TPRs and Department regions.

2.	Significant Change in Scope
[added] Each Department region is given a “control total” or dollar amount under which the sum of the cost of all projects must fall. A significant change in scope, meaning a decrease or increase of the projected cost of individual projects, may mean that less, or more, funding is available for other existing projects. This would entail dropping or adding either whole projects or projected funding amounts that might be available for those projects. This process must be carried out in an open environment involving both the affected transportation planning regions and the Department regions.

3.	Amendment Allows a Project to Become Directly Eligible for the STIP
1.	
[added] Projects being moved to an area of the plan that is directly eligible for the STIP, i.e., the constrained plan, must also be approved by the affected transportation planning regions and the Department’s regions. This could include projects moving from the preferred plan to the constrained plan where they become eligible for for inclusion the STIP.

4.	Result of Major Investment Study or Corridor Investment Study
[added] When general ideas for corridor level improvements have been included in a plan and are replaced by specific outcomes of studies, these results should be incorporated into the plan. Specific types of projects, with more accurate dollar costs, may be recommended and should be considered in the context of other existing projects, costs, and funding constraints.

5.	Update of a Regional Transportation Plan in a Metropolitan Area pursuant to the schedule identified in Title 23 CFR 450.322 (a)
[added] This new criterion has been added in response to the July 2, 1997 memo from the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments raising the concern that metropolitan area plans completed in accordance with the federal schedule were not clearly identified as sufficient reason to amend the statewide plan. This new paragraph specifies that upon completion, the MPO may request that the statewide plan be amended to include the new metropolitan area plan.

F.	Amendment Process
[amended] The amendment process described in the original rules is struck from the  rule to reflect the more specific “Guidelines for Regional and State Plan Amendments” approved by the statewide transportation advisory committee dated July 15, 1996. This process is not incorporated verbatim in the Rules, and is, therefore, not binding, but is meant to serve as a guideline to both the transportation planning regions and the Department as a mutually acceptable process to amend plans.

1.	[added] This is a general description of the amendment process which is considered to be jointly accomplished by transportation planning organizations and the Department. It includes evaluation of the need for the amendment, review by all affected parties including a public participation component, and approval by the affected regional planning commission (if the regional plan is amended) or, the Commission (if the statewide plan is being amended).

2.	[added] Once approved by the Commission, amendments will be considered part of the statewide plan, enabling projects to be eligible for the statewide transportation improvement program.

B.	Department Recommendation Regarding Amendments proposed by Planning Organizations
[deleted] This subsection is struck from the  rule to reflect the more specific “Guidelines for Regional and State Plan Amendments approved by the statewide transportation advisory committee dated July 15, 1996.

C.	Amendments Proposed by the Department
[deleted] This subsection is struck from the  rule to reflect the more specific “Guidelines for Regional and State Plan Amendments” approved by the statewide transportation advisory committee dated July 15, 1996.

Result of Public Hearing - July 17, 1997

A.	Typographical Errors
Two typographical errors were identified by staff at the hearing on July 17, 1997. On page 4, section
II -A, the date of adoption of the rules should be July 17, 1997 rather than July 1, 1997. In addition, on page 28, section VIII-A-5, the words “pursuant to” should be added following “metropolitan area.” 

B.	Other Identified Error
A Commissioner pointed out that to be consistent with the proposed language and intent of section V - the State Transportation Advisory Committee (STAC) - the STAC is obligated by the enabling statute in 43-1-1104(2) to review only regional transportation plans. Therefore, the words “and statewide” were removed from the  rule.

C.	Additional Comments from the Public (CDOT response to each item follows in italics)
1.	Commissioner Cynthia Erker of Morgan County, and representing the STAC, expressed concern that the proposed rules made changes to the language in section V concerning the duties and role of the STAC that may not be necessary. In three cases, language referring to “recommendations” by the STAC to the Department were deleted from the  rules in favor of “provide advice.”  The Transportation Commission responded that they approved the proposed language as a more accurate reflection of the statute. The Transportation Commission also responded that differences in the perceptions of the meanings of the terms may be overstated, ie., providing advice to the Department may, in fact, provide more authoritative input than does providing recommendations. The Commission also stressed that this language does not constrain the STAC from making recommendations on any relevant topics.

2.	Bob Yuhnke, representing the Colorado Public Information Research Group (COPIRG), stated that the five specific listed in section 43-1-1103 (1)(a-e) CRS are important and should be included in regional plans but are not addressed in the rules:

The Department believes that while section 43-1-1103 (1)(a-e) CRS is not cited directly as the source, these factors are included in the rules in section VI-C(1) outlining the required content of each regional transportation plan. Specific comments to address Mr. Yuhnke’s remarks and the Departments responses are as follows:

Include provisions from 43-1-1103(1) CRS as well as 43-1-1103(5) CRS in section VI-B(1) of the  rules - Section VI-B(1) requires that transportation planning organizations consider, “at a minimum, the factors described in section 43-1-1103(5) CRS and Title 23 USC 134(F) and 135(C).”  The section containing the elements in question, while not cited directly, is reflected in section VI-C(1) of the  rules which requires, among other things, both a twenty-year “constrained” and “preferred” plans (the difference of which identifies the unmet need for the planning region, and a prioritization of projects (implies a time schedule). Other elements, including environmental, social, and economic impacts, transportation system management options, travel demand management strategies, etc. are required under the federal regulation at Title 23 USC sections 134 & 135.

Fiscal Constraint - Regional transportation plans should be fiscally constrained. Section VI-C(1)(b) already requires that each regional transportation plan contain an element describing, “the fiscally constrained twenty-year intermodal transportation plan based on revenues reasonably expected to be available over the twenty-year period.”

The rules do not call for time schedules in project implementation as required by 43-1-1103(b) CRS. The Department believes that the need to identify time schedules for completion of transportation projects, as required by the statute is met in the rules by section VI-C (1)(f) that each plan shall include “Prioritization of projects in the regional transportation plan,” which is, in effect, a time schedule based on actual funds available.

In response to section 43-1-1103 (1)(c) CRS, each regional transportation plan should identify the amount of additional funding required, beyond what is available, to implement the needs identified in the plan. A provision requiring the identification of additional funding required to meet the long range needs is already included in the rules. Section VI-C-(1)(a) of the rules requires that each regional plan include a “preferred plan” to meet demand, including “ the anticipated capital and operating cost for these facilities and services.” This “preferred plan” is in addition to the fiscally constrained plan required in section VI-C-(1)(b). The Department believes the full intent of the statute has been met with this provision.

The rules do not call for an assessment of socioeconomic and environmental impacts of the plan as required by section 43-1-1103 (1)(d). The Department believes that a provision to include socioeconomic and environmental impacts is adequately provided for in the rules by section VI-C (1)(d) that each plan shall include “Assessment of social, environmental, energy, and economic impacts of the fiscally constrained plan on the TPR.”

The Department should provide planning control totals for each TPR, including MPOs,  so that each will know exactly what funds are available over the planning period and can plan accordingly. This would assure, especially in the case of metropolitan areas designated as non-attainment areas, that projects furthering air quality goals are fully implemented in the statewide plan. Each TPR will have a fiscally constrained plan, as stated in section VI-C (1)(b), but it will be based on CDOT region control totals that are split up among the TPRs within the region on a basis of consensus among the involved parties. The Department allocates its funds to its six administrative regions, not the 15 TPRs which were established for planning purposes only. The Commission has stated strongly that it wishes to maintain that procedure; allocating funds to the 15 TPRs would result in such small amounts that major projects could take years, decades, or longer to complete. The Department wishes to target its funds strategically in locations that make sense from a statewide system basis.

Public Participation in Major Investment Studies - An element requiring public participation during the conduct of major investment studies should be required. Major investment studies are only required in metropolitan areas under certain circumstances described in federal regulations. The Department does not intend to promulgate rules at the state level that could interfere with the metropolitan area planning process. However, the state is required to adopt guidelines for the major investment study process. These guidelines are in the development process and will be released at a later date. There is no requirement in the state statute for major investment study guidelines. The Department wishes to remain conservative in its approach to regulating the planning process, including only such requirements as necessary. A comprehensive public participation process is expected to be an integral part of the guidelines. Additionally, to the extent that major investment studies are a part of the transportation planning process, section VI-A (Public Participation) of the rules also applies. 

3.	Lauren Martens, representing the Colorado Environmental Coalition, made the following remarks (CDOT response to each item follows in italics):

Air Quality At-Risk Areas should target all pollutants for which the Environmental Protection Agency has established standards, rather than just particulate matter. Air quality at-risk areas are identified only for small particulate matter for a number of reasons: (1) the major metropolitan areas along the Front Range are already identified as non-attainment areas for Carbon Monoxide (CO) and, as such, subject to federal regulations; other areas of the state are not likely to develop CO (or other pollutant) problems; and, (2) this approach is acceptable to the targeted areas which would oppose what could be seen as unnecessarily burdensome regulations for problems which do not exist.

Each Transportation Planning Region should complete a fiscally constrained plan, rather than having the fiscal constraint applied to the larger CDOT region. Each TPR will have a fiscally constrained plan, as stated in section VI-C (1)(b), but it will be based on CDOT region control totals that are split up among the TPRs within the region on a basis of consensus among the involved parties. The Department allocates its funds to its six administrative regions, not the 15 TPRs which were established for planning purposes only. The Commission has stated strongly that it wishes to maintain that procedure; allocating funds to the 15 TPRs would result in such small amounts that major projects could take years, decades, or longer to complete. The Department wishes to target its funds strategically in locations that make sense from a statewide system basis.

The STAC review process should be strengthened to allow plans which are not fiscally constrained to be returned. Section VI-C(2)(d), regarding review of regional plans, allows the Department to make a determination of whether each plan has been completed in accordance with the rules, including requirements for fiscal constraint. Such determination may be made upon review and recommendation by the STAC; however, it was not deemed appropriate, considering the STAC’s legislative authority, to extend its authority beyond review and comment to approval or disapproval. Incorporation in the statewide plan is contingent upon the Department’s determination of completion.

The statewide transportation plan should include a list of priority projects based on priorities established in regional plans. The statewide plan will have a fiscally constrained plan as stated in section VI-D (1)(a) of the  rules. This will identify the Department’s priorities for the 20 year planning period.

The Transportation Commission Policies should not be deleted from the  rule. The Transportation Commission Policies were written as internal policy direction for how CDOT would conduct business, not as regulations for other transportation planning organizations. There is no requirement in statute that any such policies be included in the  rules. The original policies in the previous rules identified what areas should be addressed in policies developed by the Department; that has been accomplished and they are available to anyone for review and comment at any time. These policies will be provided to each TPR as they begin the next planning cycle for consideration in the development of their regional plans.
Written summaries for all public participation activities should be required. The comment may have referred to a section at the bottom of page 18 of the proposed rules where the requirement to provide written summaries of public meetings was deleted. The Department believes that requirement was redundant to section VI-A (5) of the proposed rules, “Documentation of Responses to Significant Issues,” where planning organizations are required to respond in writing to all significant issues raised during the review and comment period.

4.	Commissioner Brigden, of the Transportation Commission, asked how the “county hearing process” referenced in section I - Purpose - of the rules as section 43-1-106 (i) CRS is treated. The rules do not implement the county hearing process, as it is not required to be a part of the rulemaking. In addition, the statute at section 43-1-1104 (2) states, “The activities of the statewide transportation advisory committee shall not be construed to constrain or replace the county hearing process.” In other words, the county hearing process is expected to proceed (for project selection) in addition to the long range planning process regulated by these rules. These procedures are spelled out in the Department’s Project Priority Programming Process (a.k.a. the County Hearing Process).