Development. The State highway department shall also mail copies to other federal agencies, and local public officials, public advisory groups and agencies who, by nature of their function, interest, or responsibility the highway department knows or believes might be interested in or agected by the proposal. The State highway department shall establish and maintain a list upon which any federal agency, local public official, public advisory group or agency, civic association or other community group may enroll upon its request to receive notice of projects in any area specified by that agency, official or group.

(3) Each notice of public hearing shall specify the date, time, and place of the hearing and shall contain a description of the proposal. To promote public understanding, the inclusion of a map or other drawing as part of the notice is encouraged. The notice of public hearing shall specify that maps, drawings, and other pertinent information developed by the State highway department and written views received as a result of the coordination outlined in Paragraph 5.a will be available for public inspection and copying and shall specify where this information is available; namely, at the nearest State highway department office or at some other convenient location in the vicinity of the proposed project.

(4) A notice of highway design public hearing shall indicate that tentative schedules for right-of-way acquisition and construction will be discussed. (5) Notices of public hearing shall indicate that relocation assistance programs will be discussed.

(6) The State highway department shall furnish the division engineer with a copy of the notice of public hearing at the time of first publication. b. Conduct of public hearing:

(1) Public hearings are to be held at a place and time generally convenient for persons affected by the proposed undertaking.

(2) Provision shall be made for submission of written statements and other exhibits in place of, or in addition to, oral statements at a public hearing. The procedure for the submissions shall be described in the notice of public hearing and at the public hearing. The final date for receipt of such statements or exhibits shall be at least 10 days after the public hearing. (3) At each required corridor public hearing, pertinent information about location alternatives studied by the State highway department shall be made available. At each required highway design public hearing information about design alternatives studied by the State highway department shall be made available.

(4) The State highway department shall make suitable arrangements for responsible highway officials to be present at public hearings as necessary to conduct the hearings and to be responsive to questions which may arise. (5) The State highway department shall describe the State-Federal relationship in the Federal-aid highway program by an appropriate brochure, pamphlet, or statement, or by other means.

(6) A State highway department may arrange for local public officials to conduct a required public hearing. The State shall be appropriately represented at such public hearing and is responsible for meeting other requirements of this PPM.

(7) The State highway department shall explain the relocation assistance program and relocation assistance payments available.

(8) At each public hearing the State highway department shall announce or otherwise explain that, at any time after the hearing and before the location or design approval related to that hearing, all information developed in support of the proposed location or design will be available upon request, for public inspection and copying.

(9) To improve coordination with the State highway department, it is desirable that the division engineer or his representative attend a public hearing as an observer. At a hearing, he may properly explain procedural and technical matters, if asked to do so. A Federal Highway Administration decision regarding a proposed location or design will not be made before the State highway department has requested location or design approval in accordance with paragraph 10.

c. Transcript:

(1) The State highway department shall provide for the making of a verbatim written transcript of the oral proceedings at each public hearing.

It shall submit a copy of the transcript to the division engineer within a reasonable period (usually less than 2 months) after the public hearing, together with:

(a) Copies of, or reference to, or photographs of each statement or exhibit used or filed in connection with a public hearing.

(b) Copies of, or reference to, all information made available to the public before the public hearing.

(2) The State highway department shall make copies of the materials described in subparagraph 8.c. (1) available for public inspection and copying not later than the date the transcript is submitted to the division engineer.

9. CONSIDERATION OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS State highway departments shall consider social, economic, and environmental effects before submission of requests for location or design approval, whether or not a public hearing has been held. Consideration of social economic, and environmental effects shall include an analysis of information submitted to the State highway department in connection with public hearings or in response to the notice of the location or design for which a State highway department intends to request approval. It shall also include consideration of information developed by the State highway department or gained from other contacts with interested persons or groups.

10. LOCATION AND DESIGN APPROVAL

a. This section applies to all requests for location or design approval whether or not public hearings, or the opportunity for public hearings, are required by this PPM.

b. Each request by a State highway department for approval of a route location or highway design must include a study report containing the following:

(1) Descriptions of the alternatives considered and a discussion of the anticipated social, economic, and environmental effects of the alternatives, pointing out the significant differences and the reasons supporting the proposed location or design. In addition, the report must include an analysis of the relative consistency of the alternatives with the goals and objectives of any urban plan that has been adopted by the community concerned.

(a) Location study reports must describe the termini, the general type of facility, the nature of the service which the highway is intended to provide, and other major features of the alternatives.

(b) Design study reports must describe essential elements such as design standards, number of traffic lanes, access control features, general horizontal and vertical alignment, right-of-way requirements and location of bridges, interchanges, and other structures.

(2) Appropriate maps or drawings of the location or design for which approval is requested.

(3) A summary and analysis of the views received concerning the proposed undertaking.

(4) A list of any prior studies relevant to the undertaking.

c. At this time it requests approval under this paragraph, each State highway department shall publish in a newspaper meeting the requirements of paragraph 8.a. (1), a notice describing the location or design, or both, for which it is requesting approval. The notice shall include a narrative description of the location or design. Where practicable, the inclusion of a map or sketch of that location or design is desirable. In any event, the publication shall state that such maps or sketches as well as all other information submitted in support of the request for approval is publicly available at a convenient location.

d. The following requirements apply to the processing of requests for highway location or highway design approval:

(1) Location approval. The division engineer may approve a route location and authorize design engineering only after the following requirements are met:

(a) The State highway department has requested route location approval. (b) Corridor public hearings required by this PPM have been held, or the opportunity for hearings has been afforded.

(c) The State highway department has submitted public hearing transcripts and certificates required by section 128, title 23, United States Code. (d) The requirements of this PPM and of other applicable laws and regulations.

(2) Design approval. The division engineer may approve the highway design and authorize right-of-way acquisition, approve right-of-way plans, approve construction plans, specifications, and estimates, or authorize construction, only after the following requirements have been met:

(a) The route location has been approved.

(b) The State highway department has requested highway design approval.

(c) Highway design public hearings required by this PPM have been held, or the opportunity for hearings has been afforded.

(d) The State highway department has submitted the public hearing transcripts and certificates required by section 128, title 23, United States Code. (e) The requirements of this PPM and of other applicable laws and regulations.

e. The division engineer, under criteria to be promulgated by the Federal Highway Administrator, may in other appropriate instances authorize the acquisition of right-of-way before a design hearing.

f. Secondary Road Plans shall be amended as necessary to incorporate procedures similar to those required for other projects. Secondary Road Plans shall include provisions requiring:

(1) route location and highway design approval.

(2) preparation of study reports as described in paragraph 10(b), and (3) corridor and highway design public hearings in all cases where they would be required for Federal-aid projects not administered under the Secondary Road Plan. Project actions by the division engineer or submissions to the division engineer which are not now required should not be established for Secondary Road Plan projects as a result of this PPM.

11. PUBLICATION OF APPROVAL

In cases where a public hearing was held, or the opportunity for a public hearing afforded. the State highway department shall publish notice of the action taken by the division engineer on each request for approval of a highway location or design, or both, in a newspaper meeting the requirements of paragraph 8.a. (1), within 10 days after receiving notice of that action. The notice shall include a narrative description of the location and/or design, as approved. Where practicable, the inclusion of a map or sketch of that location or design is desirable. In any event, the publication shall state that such maps or sketches as well as all other information concerning the approval is publicly available at a convenient location.

12. REIMBURSEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING EXPENSES

Public hearings are an integral part of the preliminary engineering process. Reasonable costs associated with public hearings are eligible for reimbursement with Federal-aid funds on the same basis as other preliminary engineering costs.

F. C. TURNER,

Director of Public Roads. LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, Federal Highway Administrator.

Mr. TURNER. Because of the considerable impact of this issuance on State highway department operations, let me point out some of the principal modifications of the procedure that were the result of this memorandum.

First, perhaps most important, the memorandum established new public hearing requirements for proposed Federal-aid highway projects for various classes, as follows:

A. For projects on new locations, or those having other significant social, economic or environmental impact. A second public hearing is

required prior to final agreement on project design details as shown by the red card which has been added to the process chart.

Mr. WRIGHT. I can understand why you have a public hearing on the location of the highway, because it affects people, but I am afraid I can't understand why you have to have a public hearing on the design. Isn't the design an engineering question, primarily to be resolved by highway people?

Mr. TURNER. Well, it always had been in the past. We thought we had cranked into the process design selection and the wishes and considerations of the public. But we have been told in loud voices by many members of the public in recent years that we were not taking into account their needs, that we were designing purely from an engineering standpoint, without regard to the impact on the community or the needs of both individuals and community.

Mr. WRIGHT. Design is separate and distinct from location?

Mr. TURNER. No; you can't really separate the two. Design and location are pretty much one and the same.

Mr. WRIGHT. The word "corridor," which appears on your earlier blue card implies location, does it not?

Mr. TURNER. Yes.

Mr. WRIGHT. That is where the highway is going to be?

Mr. TURNER. Yes; we have separated them this way in order to give smaller packages. This enables us, at different stages in the long process of developing the project, to bring our accumulated recommendations before the public and get public reaction, before we go to the next stage. By doing so we don't proceed to the second stage and find that the first stage was unacceptable which requires us to go back and redo it. We have attempted to take the public along with us as we go through these different stages of processing the project.

So, this is basically why we have involved hearing processes, in order to give opportunity for the public, either an individual member of the public or groups at large, the opportunity to participate with us in the decisionmaking process as we go along.

Mr. WRIGHT. The public can actually help you design a highway? Mr. TURNER. Yes, because they want to know, if, for example, it is an interstate project going through an area of the city, how wide the highway is going to be, how much adjacent property is it going to take, is it going to be on structure, or if it is going to be on fill. If so, how high in the area is it going to be, are we going to have crossroads over it or under it, is parking going to be permitted, where are the connections going to be, and dozens of other questions that are part of the design process.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Turner, it is one thing if the people know that down the street from where they live there is going to be an interstate highway coming by, either over or under; and also another thing, will there be an interchange from the road I live on down there or not, which will generate a lot more traffic. I can see where there would be an interest in the design.

Mr. TURNER. Yes; they have a large number of points of interest in connection with the design. Basically, is it going to be elevated or depressed? If it is elevated, is it going to be on fill or is it going to be on structure? Am I going to be able to get across it to my neighbors

on the other side here? How far do I have to go to get around? How far will the children have to go to get across to play with their friends on the other side? Will there be pedestrian crossings, and thousands of other questions that relate to design?

We have attempted to set the process up in such a way that as we go along there is ample opportunity for the public to see and know at all times what we are doing and what we are proposing, before final decisions are reached on these matters.

We can and do occasionally combine the public hearings, both the design and location hearings, and conduct only one public hearing. Sometimes, for minor projects within existing right-of-way, when we don't have anything more than repaving a project, and it doesn't affect the traffic service or take additional right-of-way, or affect adjacent property, we can reduce the number of hearings in that instance.

With respect to our hearing process, our memorandum also specifies that we shall approve the route location and authorize the design engineering after the corridor public hearing. I emphasize this, Mr. Chairman, that we do not make decisions on the next step until after we have had these public hearings. We are constantly accused of going to the public hearing, with the hearing cut and dried; the decision is already made, we are going through this merely as a formality, and a citizen who makes or the group who makes a presentation at the hearing is in fact ignored. It is asserted that he is wasting his time and everybody else's because the decisions have already been made. This is emphatically not true.

We have to go to the hearing, however, with considerable detail. We have to have all the alternates thought through. I think that it is our responsibility-by our, I mean the State highway department's and ours, the public authority-to go to the public hearing with enough information and study having been made of all the alternates so that we can present them with some basis as a recommendation which we think may make the best decision, and then seek the public's reaction.

I don't believe that the average citizen is capable of knowing all of the possibilities, all the pros and cons of one of these projects. I think it is our responsibility to go to the hearing prepared with all of these materials, give them to the public, and answer the public's questions. Then after having considered all of the points raised at the hearing, we are better able to make the final decision. This is the way we do it despite almost constant criticism that the decisions are already made, that the hearing is pro forma, that it is cut and dried and with no opportunity to make changes.

point out to you that in reviewing the public hearings, we find that in 15 percent of all the projects, the public hearing does cause a major change in what the State took to the hearing as its recommendations. Many other minor changes are made.

Mr. WRIGHT. This is a participatory democracy.

Mr. TURNER. In one case out of every seven, there is a major change in the project made by the highway department as a result of, and after, the public hearing. This, I think, is what we are after, and I think it demonstrates that the hearing process is being observed and is being responded to by the highway department.