Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform |
|---|
|
Gregory G. Nadeau
Federal Highway Administration
Carolyn Flowers
Federal Transit Administration
27 June 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41473-41485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14854]
[[Page 41473]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 450
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 613
[Docket No. FHWA-2016-0016; FHWA RIN 2125-AF68; FTA RIN 2132-AB28]
Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area
Reform
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit
Administration (FTA); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA and FTA propose revisions to the transportation
planning regulations to promote more effective regional planning by
States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). The goal of the
proposed revisions is to result in unified planning products for each
urbanized area (UZA), even if there are multiple MPOs designated within
that urbanized area. Specifically it would result in MPOs developing a
single metropolitan transportation plan, a single transportation
improvement program (TIP), and a jointly established set of performance
targets for the entire urbanized area and contiguous area expected to
become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the
transportation plan. If multiple MPOs are designated within that
urbanized area, they would jointly prepare these unified planning
products. To accomplish this, the proposed revisions clarify that the
metropolitan planning area must include the entire urbanized area and
contiguous area expected to become urbanized within 20 years.
These proposed revisions would better align the planning
regulations with statutory provisions concerning the establishment of
metropolitan planning area (MPA) boundaries and the designation of
MPOs. This includes the statutory requirement for the MPA to include an
urbanized area in its entirety, and the exception provision to allow
more than one MPO to serve a single MPA if warranted by the size and
complexity of the MPA. The rulemaking would establish clearer operating
procedures, and reinstate certain coordination and decisionmaking
requirements for situations where there is more than one MPO serving an
MPA. The proposed rule includes a requirement for unified planning
products for the MPA including jointly established performance targets
within an MPA, and a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP
for the entire MPA in order to result in planning products that reflect
the regional needs of the entire urbanized area. These unified planning
products would be jointly developed by the multiple MPOs in such MPAs
where more than one MPO is designated. The FHWA and FTA propose to
phase in implementation of these proposed coordination requirements and
the proposed requirements for MPA boundary and MPO boundaries
agreements over 2 years.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to: Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this
document. All comments received will be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt
of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may
print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, or labor union). You may review the DOT
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).
Electronic Access and Filing
This document and all comments received may be viewed online
through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing
the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's Web site
at: http://www.gpo.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FHWA: Mr. Harlan W. Miller,
Planning Oversight and Stewardship Team (HEPP-10), (202) 366-0847; or
Ms. Janet Myers, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-2019.
For FTA: Ms. Sherry Riklin, Office of Planning and Environment, (202)
366-5407; Mr. Dwayne Weeks, Office of Planning and Environment, (202)
493-0316; or Mr. Christopher Hall, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-
5218. Both agencies are located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., ET for
FHWA, and 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., ET for FTA, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary
This regulation proposes to improve the transportation planning
process by strengthening the coordination of MPOs and States and
promoting the use of regional approaches to planning and
decisionmaking. The proposed rule would emphasize the importance of
applying a regional perspective during the planning process, to ensure
that transportation investments reflect the needs and priorities of an
entire region. Recognizing the critical role MPOs play in providing for
the well-being of a region, this proposed rule would strengthen the
voice of MPOs in the transportation planning process.
This proposed rule would revise the regulatory definition of
``metropolitan planning area'' (MPA) to better align with the statutory
requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.\1\ Specifically, the
proposed rule would amend the definition of MPA in 23 CFR 450.104 to
include the conditions in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2) that require the MPA, at
a minimum, include the entire urbanized area and the contiguous area
expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the
metropolitan transportation plan. By aligning the regulatory definition
of the MPA with the statute, the proposed rule would acknowledge that
the MPA is dynamic. The MPA is the basic geographic unit for
metropolitan planning; therefore this requirement will ensure that
planning activities consider the entire region of the urbanized area
consistently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For simplicity, the remainder of this NPRM refers only to
the planning provisions codified in title 23, although similar
provisions also are codified in chapter 53 of title 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) allows multiple MPOs to be
designated within a single MPA if the Governor and MPO determine that
the size and complexity of the area make multiple MPOs appropriate; the
proposed rule would establish certain requirements applicable in such
instances where multiple MPOs serve a single MPA. It
[[Page 41474]]
would also establish certain requirements applicable in such instances
where an MPO's urbanized area spreads into the MPAs of neighboring
MPOs. First, the proposed rule would clarify that MPA boundaries are
not necessarily synonymous with MPO boundaries. Second, the proposed
rule would amend Sec. 450.310(e) of the regulation to clarify that,
where more than one MPO serves an MPA, the Governor and affected MPOs
will establish or adjust the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA by
agreement. Third, the proposed rule would establish additional
coordination requirements for areas where multiple MPOs are designated
within the MPA. Under the proposed rule, the Governor and MPOs would
determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA make the
designation of multiple MPOs appropriate; if they determine it is not
appropriate then the MPOs would be required to merge or adjust their
jurisdiction such that there is only one MPO within the MPA. If they
determine that designation of multiple MPOs is appropriate, then the
MPOs may remain separate, with separate boundaries of responsibility
within the MPA, as established by the affected MPOs and the Governor.
However, the proposed rule would require those multiple separate MPOs
to jointly develop unified planning products: A single long range plan
(referred to as the metropolitan transportation plan), a single TIP,
and a jointly established set of performance targets for the MPA.
The requirement for unified planning products also applies to
urbanized areas that cross State lines. In multistate urbanized areas,
the Governors and MPOs designated within the MPA must jointly determine
whether the size and complexity of the MPA warrant designation of more
than one MPO and must jointly develop unified planning products.
These requirements for a single planning process and a single
metropolitan transportation plan to accommodate the intended growth of
a region will enable individuals within that region to better engage in
the planning process and facilitate their efforts to ensure that the
growth trajectory matches their vision and goals. In order to support
the development of these single documents, the MPOs would be required
to establish procedures for joint decisionmaking, including a process
for resolving disagreements.
Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to strengthen the role that
MPOs play in the planning process by requiring States and MPOs to agree
to a process for resolving disagreements and including that process in
the documentation reviewed by FHWA and FTA when they make a planning
finding under 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(8). The planning finding is a
determination on whether the transportation planning process through
which statewide transportation plans and programs are developed is
consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134-135.
These proposed changes to the planning regulations are designed to
facilitate metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes
that are more efficient, more comprehensible to stakeholders and the
public, and more focused on projects that address critical regional
needs. The proposed rule would help position MPOs to respond to the
growing trend of urbanization. It would better align the planning
processes with the regional scale envisioned by the performance-based
planning framework and particularly those measures focused on
congestion and system performance. The proposed rule also would help
MPOs to achieve economies of scale in planning by working together and
drawing on a larger pool of human, material, financial, and
technological resources.
Table of Key Changes Proposed by the NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key regulatory
Proposed change Description sections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Planning Area The metropolitan 450.104
(MPA) boundaries. planning area shall (Definitions).
include--at a 450.312
minimum--the entire (Metropolitan
urbanized area plus planning area
any contiguous area boundaries).
expected to become
urbanized within a 20-
year forecast period
for the
transportation plan.
Determination that more than If after the 450.310 (MPO
one MPO in an MPA is publication of this designation and
appropriate. rule or the release redesignation).
of the Decennial
Census, there is more
than one MPO
designated within a
single MPA, the
Governor and MPO must
determine whether the
size and complexity
of the MPA make
designation of more
than one MPO
appropriate. If they
determine it is not
appropriate, those
MPOs would be
required to merge.
Coordination for multiple MPOs Where multiple MPOs 450.104
within an MPA. are designated within (Definitions).
a metropolitan 450.306 (Scope
planning area, they of the
shall jointly develop metropolitan
the metropolitan transportation
transportation plan, planning
TIP, and performance process).
targets for the MPA. 450.324
Additionally, the (Development
MPOs shall establish and content of
procedures for joint the
decisionmaking as metropolitan
well as a process for transportation
resolving plan).
disagreements. 450.326
(Development
and content of
the TIP).
Coordination of planning States and MPOs shall 450.208
process activities between maintain a current (Coordination
State and MPO. planning agreement, of planning
including a process process
for resolving activities).
disagreements. States
and MPOs shall
coordinate on
information, studies,
or analyses within
the MPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
MPA and MPO Boundaries
The metropolitan planning statute defines an MPA as ``the
geographic area determined by agreement between the metropolitan
planning organization for the area and the Governor under subsection
[134](e)'' 23 U.S.C. 134(b)(1). The agreement on the geographic area is
subject to the minimum requirements contained in 23 U.S.C.
134(e)(2)(A), which states that each MPA ``shall encompass at least the
existing urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become
urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation
plan''.
The MPA and MPO provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134 make it clear that the
intent for a typical metropolitan planning
[[Page 41475]]
structure is to have a single MPO per urbanized area. However, the
statute does create an exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7), which provides
that more than one MPO may be designated within an existing MPA only if
the Governor and the existing MPO determine that the size and
complexity of the existing MPA make designation of more than one MPO
for the area appropriate. Section 134(d)(7) reinforces the
interpretation that the norm envisioned by the statute is that
urbanized areas not be divided into multiple planning areas.
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act was
enacted with provisions intended to strengthen metropolitan planning.
In particular, the law gave MPOs responsibility for coordinated
planning to address the challenges of regional congestion and air
quality issues. This enhanced planning role for MPOs was defined in the
1993 planning regulation, which was written to carry out these changes
to statute. The 1993 planning regulation described a single coordinated
planning process for the metropolitan planning area (MPA) resulting in
a single metropolitan transportation plan for the MPA. In several
locations, the 1993 regulation recognized the possibility of multiple
MPOs within a single MPA and provided expectations for coordination,
which included an overall transportation plan for the entire area. (See
58 FR 58040, October 28, 1993). The 1993 regulation stated in the
former Sec. 450.310(g) that ``where more than one MPO has authority
within a metropolitan planning area or a nonattainment or maintenance
area, there shall be an agreement between the State departments(s) of
transportation and the MPOs describing how the processes will be
coordinated to assure the development of an overall transportation plan
for the metropolitan planning area.'' Further, that regulation stated
in former Sec. 450.312(e) that where ``more than one MPO has authority
in a metropolitan planning area . . . the MPOs and the Governor(s)
shall cooperatively establish the boundaries of the metropolitan
planning area . . . and the respective jurisdictional responsibilities
of each MPO.'' In practice, however, many MPOs interpreted the MPA to
be synonymous with the boundaries of their MPO's jurisdiction, even in
those areas where multiple MPOs existed within a single urbanized area,
resulting in multiple ``MPAs'' within a single urbanized area.
In 2007, the FHWA and FTA updated the regulations to align with
changes made in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and its predecessor, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The revised regulations
reflected the practice of having multiple ``MPAs'' within a single
urbanized area, although the statute pertaining to this issue had not
changed. The 2007 regulation refers to multiple MPOs within an
urbanized area rather than multiple MPOs within an MPA, and the term
``MPA'' was used to refer synonymously to the boundaries of an MPO. The
regulations stated ``if more than one MPO has been designated to serve
an urbanized area, there shall be a written agreement among the MPOs,
the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) describing how
the metropolitan transportation planning processes will be coordinated
to assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation
plans and TIPs across the MPA boundaries, particularly in cases in
which a proposed transportation investment extends across the
boundaries of more than one MPA.'' See 72 FR 7224, February 14, 2007.
The FHWA and FTA adopted that language as Sec. 450.314(d), and
redesignated it in a 2016 rulemaking as Sec. 450.314(e).\2\ The 2007
rule also added Sec. 450.312(h), which explicitly recognizes that,
over time, an urbanized area may extend across multiple MPAs. The 2007
rulemaking did not address how to reconcile these regulatory changes
with the statutory minimum requirement that an MPA include the
urbanized area in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning;
Metropolitan Transportation Planning; Final Rule, 81 FR 34050, May
27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, since 2007, the language of the regulation has
supported the possibility of multiple MPOs within an urbanized area
rather than within an MPA. The FHWA and FTA have concluded this 2007
change in the regulatory definition has fostered confusion about the
statutory requirements and resulted in less efficient planning outcomes
where multiple TIPs and metropolitan transportation plans are developed
within a single urbanized area. This proposed rule is designed to
correct the problems that have occurred under the 2007 rule and return
to the structure embodied in the rule before the 2007 amendments and
envisioned in statute. The additional coordination requirements pertain
to all MPOs designated within the MPA boundaries.
Illustrations of metropolitan areas are included in the docket to
aid understanding of the distinction between MPO and MPA boundaries,
and also the difference between the way MPAs have been designated in
practice and the minimum area that must be included as a result of this
proposed rulemaking. These illustrations will help clarify the
coordination requirements proposed in this rulemaking.
MPO Coordination Within an MPA
The metropolitan planning statute calls for ``each MPO to prepare
and update a transportation plan for its metropolitan planning area''
and ``develop a TIP for the metropolitan planning area.'' 23 U.S.C.
134(i)(1)(A) and (j)(1)(A). As discussed above, the metropolitan
planning statute includes an exception provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7)
that allows more than one MPO in an MPA under certain conditions. In
some instances, multiple MPOs have been designated not only within a
single MPA, but also within a single urbanized area in an MPA.
Presently, such MPOs typically create separate metropolitan
transportation plans and TIPs for separate parts of the urbanized area.
Currently, the regulations require that where multiple MPOs exist
within the same urbanized area, their written agreements must describe
how they will coordinate activities. However, the extent and
effectiveness of coordination varies, and in some cases effective
coordination on regional needs and interests can prove challenging.
Ultimately, the Secretary of Transportation believes, and FHWA and FTA
concur, that the end result of two or more separate metropolitan
transportation planning processes, resulting in two or more separate
plans and TIPs for a single urbanized area is most often both
inefficient and confusing to the public. For example, members of the
public may be affected by projects in multiple MPO jurisdictions,
either because they live in the area of one MPO and work or regularly
travel to another, or because the MPOs' jurisdictional lines bisect
their community. They would therefore find it necessary to contribute
to each MPO's separate planning process in order to have their regional
concerns adequately considered. Public participation in transportation
planning is critical to ensuring that the investment decisions meet the
needs of the affected communities.
Further, a regional perspective is needed if metropolitan
transportation planning is to maximize economic opportunities, while
also addressing the externalities of growth such as congestion, air and
water quality impacts, and impacts on resilience. The
[[Page 41476]]
Secretary of Transportation believes, and FHWA and FTA concur, that
joint decisionmaking is necessary in the multiple MPO situations to
best ensure application of a regional perspective. Accordingly, this
rulemaking addresses coordination and decisionmaking requirements for
MPOs that are subject to the 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) exception to the one-
MPO-per-MPA structure of the metropolitan planning statute.
Coordination Between States and MPOs
The statewide planning statute calls for a continuing, cooperative,
and comprehensive process for developing the statewide plan and the
statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). 23 U.S.C.
135(a)(3). The statute requires States to develop the long range
statewide plan and the STIP in cooperation with MPOs designated under
23 U.S.C. 134. 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(A) and (g)(2)(A). While these
statutes require that the State work in cooperation with the MPOs on
long-range statewide transportation plans and STIPs, the extent to
which MPO voices are heard varies significantly. The nature of
decisionmaking authority of MPOs and States varies due to numerous
factors, including the extent of local funding for transportation
projects. The Secretary of Transportation believes that the voices of
MPOs will be strengthened by having a single coordinated metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP for each MPA, which should create a united
position on transportation needs and priorities within that urbanized
area. Ultimately, each relationship between State and MPO is unique,
and there may not be a single coordination process that is appropriate
for all areas of the country. However, it is the opinion of the
Secretary of Transportation that there must be adequate cooperation
between States and MPOs. The FHWA and FTA concur in those views, and
therefore this proposed rule would require that States and MPOs
demonstrate evidence of cooperation, including the existence of an
agreed upon dispute resolution process.
The purpose of the Planning program is to use public funds
effectively and FHWA and FTA welcome ideas to improve our planning
processes. As such, FHWA and FTA seek comment on how DOT can
incorporate processes to further ensure that Federal funds are used
efficiency by States and MPOs. How can the Statewide and Non
metropolitan and Metropolitan Transportation Planning process provide
stronger incentives to States and MPOs to manage transportation funding
more effectively?
III. Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 450.104--Definitions
The proposed rule would revise the definition of ``metropolitan
planning area'' in Sec. 450.104 to add language to align the
definition with the basic statutory requirements for MPA boundaries.
The purpose of the revision is to help reduce confusion about MPA
requirements. The current definition describes the MPA as the
geographic area determined by agreement between the MPO(s) for the area
and the Governor. That definition does not include any reference to the
minimum requirement in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(A) that the MPA must include
the entire urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become
urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan.
The revised definition would add a description of the minimum
requirement from the statute, and describe the 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(B)
option to include more than the minimum geographic area. The FHWA and
FTA specifically ask for comments on whether the rule ought to
expressly address how States and MPOs should determine MPA boundaries
where two or more MPAs are contiguous or can be expected to be
contiguous in the near future. For example, should the rule provide
that such MPAs must merge? Alternatively, should the rule allow the
States and MPOs to tailor the MPA boundaries and the 20-year
urbanization forecast to take the proximity of other MPAs into account?
The term ``Metropolitan Transportation Plan'' is revised by
changing the location and number of MPO references in the definition,
and by adding a reference to the MPA. Similar changes are proposed for
the definition of ``Transportation Improvement Program'' to make it
clear the definition encompasses situations where multiple MPOs in an
MPA work together to develop a unified TIP. The inclusion of new
references to the MPA in the definitions clarifies that the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the TIP are developed through the
metropolitan transportation planning process for the entire MPA.
Section 450.208--Coordination of Planning Process Activities
The proposed rule would strengthen and clarify expectations for
State-MPO coordination, and would require metropolitan planning
agreements to include coordination strategies and dispute resolution
procedures. Section 450.208(a)(1) previously encouraged States to rely
on MPO data and analysis for areas within the MPA; the rule would now
require coordination between States and MPOs. This change is proposed
to ensure States and MPOs employ consistent data, assumptions and other
analytical materials when doing transportation planning; this does not
affect roles and responsibilities for project prioritization. The
section would be further amended by adding language to require the
State and MPO to maintain a current planning agreement that includes a
process for resolving disagreements. The metropolitan planning
agreement, and its inclusion of strategies for coordination and the
resolution of disagreements would be included among the other relevant
documents considered by FHWA and FTA as part of their periodic
determination under 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(8) whether the transportation
planning process through which statewide transportation plans and
programs are developed is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134-135.
Section 450.218--Development and Content of the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The proposed rule would change the reference to ``MPO'' to
``MPO(s)'' in two places. This is to more clearly recognize the
possibility that multiple MPOs may be involved with the development of
a single metropolitan TIP.
Section 450.226--Phase-In of New Requirements
The proposed rule would provide a phase-in provision for the
proposed requirement in 23 CFR 450.208(a)(1) that metropolitan planning
agreement must include strategies for coordination and the resolution
of disagreements. In proposed Sec. 450.226(h), the rule would provide
a phase-in period of 2 years after the publication date of a final
rule. The compliance date for all other proposed changes in 23 CFR part
450, subpart A would be the effective date of the final rule. The FHWA
and FTA seek comments on the appropriateness of the proposed 2-year
phase-in period.
Section 450.300--Purpose
The proposed rule would add a reference to MPA in the first
sentence in Sec. 450.300(a). The addition makes it clear that an MPO
carries out the planning process for its MPA. This change will enhance
the consistency in the rule, maintaining the statutory focus on the MPO
as carrying out planning for its MPA, of which one or more entire
urbanized areas are a part.
[[Page 41477]]
Section 450.306--Scope of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning
Process
The proposed rule would add a new paragraph to Sec. 450.306(d).
Where there are multiple MPOs for an MPA, the new provision would
require the MPOs to jointly establish the MPA's performance targets
under 23 CFR part 490 (where applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49
U.S.C. 5329(d). This requirement for a joint target-setting process
would be consistent with the requirements established in the proposed
rule for a joint metropolitan plan and TIP for the MPA shared by the
MPOs. The FHWA and FTA request comments on the proposed language, and
request ideas for alternatives that might better accomplish the goals
embodied in the proposal. Those goals are to ensure performance targets
appropriately reflect the needs and priorities of the MPA as a whole,
and to avoid a situation where the MPOs within a single MPA select
inconsistent or conflicting performance targets.
In paragraph (i), the proposed rule would change the reference from
``MPO'' to ``MPO(s)'' in the last sentence of the paragraph. This is to
more clearly recognize the possibility that multiple MPOs may be
involved with the development of an abbreviated plan or TIP using
simplified procedures.
Section 450.310--Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation and
Redesignation
As provided in statute, some MPAs will necessarily be so large and
complex that multiple MPOs are needed within the MPA. The proposed rule
reflects the view, based on an interpretation of the planning statutes
and on FHWA and FTA experiences, that when there are multiple MPOs
within the same MPA, enhanced coordination and joint decisionmaking
procedures are needed to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive
planning process within the MPA. The proposed rule would revise Sec.
450.310(e) by clarifying that more than one MPO can be designated for
an MPA only when the Governor and MPO(s) determine it is warranted, in
accordance with Sec. 450.310(e). This change would reinforce the
statutory principle that ordinarily only one MPO shall be designated
for an MPA. The proposed rule retains the statutory standard permitting
the designation of multiple MPOs within an MPA only if the Governor and
existing MPO determine that the MPA's size and complexity necessitate
multiple MPOs. Several references in the existing rule to ``urbanized
areas'' would be replaced with ``MPA'' to better align with the
statutory language.
The proposed rule would articulate in Sec. 450.310(e) the limited
exemption to the requirement of one MPO per MPA and the requirements
applicable when multiple MPOs are designated within the same MPA. The
case could arise that multiple MPOs that were previously designated
will come to be located within the same MPA, either because this rule,
once effective, will require some Governors and MPOs to reevaluate the
bounds of MPAs, or due to the future merger of urbanized areas
following a Decennial Census. In those situations, paragraph (e)
provides that the Governor and MPOs would have to determine whether the
size and complexity of the MPA warrant the designation of multiple
MPOs.
The statute envisions a single MPO per MPA, with the exception that
more than one MPO may be designated only if the Governor and existing
MPO determine that the size and complexity of the metropolitan planning
area make the designation of multiple MPOs appropriate. However,
because of the past practice of many MPOs and Governors treating the
term MPA as essentially synonymous with the territory of any particular
MPO, many MPOs are not in compliance with the statute. This rule would
require some MPOs and Governors to conceptualize for the first time the
bounds of the MPAs as geographically distinct from the jurisdictional
boundaries of the MPOs. Accordingly, for any MPOs that newly share an
MPA with one or more other MPOs as a result of this rulemaking
enforcing the statutory definition of MPA, the affected MPOs and
Governor must make a determination that the MPA is of a size and
complexity that makes multiple MPOs appropriate, or must merge the MPOs
in MPAs where the Governor and MPOs determine that the size and
complexity do not make multiple MPOs appropriate.
If the Governor and MPOs determine that multiple MPOs are not
warranted based on the size and complexity of the MPA, those MPOs would
have to merge and follow the redesignation procedures in Sec.
450.310(h). Where it is determined that multiple MPOs are warranted,
coordination still would be required among the MPOs in the affected MPA
under the rule, with revisions to emphasize that the MPOs would jointly
develop a unified plan, TIP, and performance targets for the entire
MPA. The MPOs still would be required to establish official, written
agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination, the division of
transportation planning responsibilities among and between the MPOs,
and procedures for joint decisionmaking and the resolution of
disagreements--all for and within the affected MPA. Together with the
Governor, those MPOs would jointly establish the MPO boundaries within
the MPA.
The proposed rule would change a reference to ``entire MPA'' in
paragraph (m), concerning coordination in multistate metropolitan
areas, to ``entire metropolitan area.'' The FHWA and FTA believe
``metropolitan area'' is consistent with ``multistate metropolitan
area'' and more clearly conveys the intent of the paragraph.
Section 450.312--Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries
The proposed rule would reorganize, and make technical edits to,
existing Sec. 450.312. The proposed rule would add or clarify
requirements through revisions in paragraphs (c), (f), (h), and (i).
The proposed rule would reorganize Sec. 450.312(a) by switching
the order of the first two sentences. The proposed rule would move
certain references to ``MPA'' and add language in proposed Sec.
450.312(a)(1) to clarify and emphasize that an agreement between the
Governor and an MPO concerning the boundaries of an MPA is subject to
the minimum requirement that the MPA contain the entire existing
urbanized area plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized
within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan. The
proposed rule also adds a new Sec. 450.312(a)(2) to clarify that when
MPOs are contiguous to the same non-urbanized area that is expected to
become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the
transportation plan, they must agree on their mutual MPA boundaries so
that their boundaries do not overlap.
Section 450.312(b) would be reorganized. Section 450.312(b) and (c)
would be edited for consistency with the requirement that an MPA
contain an urbanized area in its entirety.
Section 450.312(f) would be revised to more closely align with the
language of 23 U.S.C. 134(f). That provision calls for the Secretary to
encourage the Governors and MPOs in a multistate metropolitan area to
coordinate transportation planning across the entire metropolitan area.
The FHWA and FTA concluded the statute's use of the term ``metropolitan
area,'' rather than the statutorily-defined term ``MPA,'' reflects an
intention to promote coordinated planning across a broader area than a
single MPA. This interpretation takes into consideration the plain
language
[[Page 41478]]
meaning of ``metropolitan area.'' as well as the historical use of the
term by the Federal Government.\3\ The type of coordination called for
in 23 U.S.C. 134(f), as reflected in the proposed revisions to Sec.
450.312(f), reaches beyond MPAs to include not only the core urban
areas but also outlying areas that are economically and socially
integrated with the urban areas. The proposed rule also would add
language describing the compact authority contained in 23 U.S.C.
134(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., the U.S. Census Bureau discussions in
``Metropolitan Areas'' available online at https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/geography/metropolitan_areas.html (as of March
2016) and ``Metropolitan Areas Standards Review Project (MASRP)''
available online at http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/masrp.html (as of march 2016); see also Office of management and
Budget discussion in its Notice of Standards for Defining
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (65 FR 82228, at
82228-82229 (December 27, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 450.312(h) would be entirely rewritten for consistency with
the proposed rule's emphasis on the statutory requirement that all of
an urbanized area be contained in the same MPA. As proposed, Sec.
450.312(h) would describe the organizational options available to
Governors and MPOs where more than one MPO is designated in an MPA, as
authorized by the exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7). Proposed Sec.
450.312(h)(1) through (3) would describe minimum requirements
applicable where the multiple MPOs exist in a single MPA. The three
requirements would be (1) a written agreement among the MPOs to
identify how planning decisions will be made and carried out, (2) use
of joint decisionmaking to develop a single metropolitan transportation
plan and TIP for the entire MPA, and (3) establishment of the
boundaries for each MPO within the MPA by agreement of the Governor and
the affected MPOs.
The proposed rule would revise Sec. 450.312(i), which addresses
reviews of MPA boundaries after each Census. The changes would include
clarifying that the minimum requirements for MPAs apply in this
situation. Following a Decennial Census, the MPO(s) are required to
review the MPA boundaries to ensure compliance with the minimum
statutory requirements. This includes changes in urbanized areas that
result in the merging of previously separate urbanized areas, or
expansion of urbanized areas into a neighboring MPA. Under the proposed
rule, if a Census results in two previously separate urbanized areas
being defined as a single urbanized area, the Governor and MPO(s) would
have to redetermine the affected MPAs as a single MPA that includes the
entire new urbanized area plus the contiguous area expected to become
urbanized within a 20-year forecast period of the transportation plan.
The MPOs may remain separate only if the Governor and MPOs determine
that the size and complexity of the MPA make it appropriate to have
multiple MPOs designated for the area, as described in 23 U.S.C.
134(d)(7). This paragraph also clarifies the responsibilities when two
or more MPOs may be adjacent to the same non-urbanized area that is
expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the
transportation plan, or when an urbanized area expands into a
neighboring MPA. In these situations, the Governor and MPOs are
encouraged to merge adjacent MPAs when urbanized areas are contiguous
or when the urbanized areas are expected to become contiguous within a
20-year forecast period for the transportation plan, but they must at a
minimum agree on their mutual MPA boundaries. This paragraph also
establishes a timeline for compliance following a Decennial Census that
results in the merger of two or more previously separate MPAs.
The proposed rule would add a new paragraph--Sec. 450.312(j)--
which would enumerate the situations in which a Governor and MPOs are
encouraged to merge multiple MPAs into a single MPA, including when
multiple urbanized areas are directly adjacent to each other, when they
are expected to grow to become adjacent within 20 years, or when they
are adjacent to the same non-urbanized area that is expected to become
urbanized within 20 years.
The proposed rule would change a reference in the renumbered Sec.
450.312(k) from ``MPO'' to ``MPO(s)'' for consistency with other
proposed changes.
Section 450.314--Metropolitan Planning Agreements
The proposed rule would change several references in Sec. 450.314
from ``MPO'' to ``MPO(s)'' for consistency with other proposed changes
in the rule.
The proposed rule would make several changes to Sec. 450.314(e).
The rule would change ``an urbanized area'' in the first sentence to
``an MPA,'' to better reflect the statutory relationship between MPOs,
MPAs, and urbanized areas. The sentence would also be changed to
require development of a single metropolitan transportation plan and
TIP for an MPA. Where a proposed transportation investment extends
across the boundaries of more than one MPA, the proposed rule would
require MPOs to coordinate to assure the development of consistent
metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs. This would replace language
in the existing rule that calls for consistent plans and TIPs across
the MPA. The proposed rule would require, rather than encourage, the
use of coordinated data collection, analysis, and planning assumptions
across the MPA. The proposed rule would strongly encourage the use of
such practices across neighboring MPOs that are not within the same
MPA. The FHWA and FTA seek comments on what, if any, exemptions ought
to be contained in the rule from these requirements, and what criteria
might be used for such an exemption.
The proposed rule would eliminate the phrase ``urbanized area''
from Sec. 450.314(f), concerning multistate MPAs, and change existing
references from ``multistate area'' to ``multistate MPA.'' These
changes will make the provision more consistent with the planning
statute and other proposed changes in the rule.
Under the proposed rule, Sec. 450.314(g) would be revised for
consistency with the statutory requirement that all of an urbanized are
be included within the same MPA. The proposed rule would clarify that
the rule's existing requirement for a written agreement on roles and
responsibilities for meeting transportation management area (TMA)
requirements applies where more than one MPO serve the MPA containing
the TMA.
Similar changes would be made in Sec. 450.314(h), to clarify that
the cooperative development and sharing of information related to
performance management applies when an MPA includes an urbanized area
that has been designated as a TMA as well as an urbanized area that is
not a TMA.
Section 450.316--Interested Parties, Participation, and Consultation
The proposed rule would revise Sec. 450.316(b), (c), and (d) by
changing references from ``MPO'' to ``MPO(s).'' These changes would
make the references consistent with other changes proposed in this
rule.
Section 450.324--Development and Content of the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan
References to ``MPO'' in several parts of Sec. 450.324 would be
changed to ``MPO(s)'' for consistency with other proposed changes to
the rule. The proposed rule would redesignate the current Sec.
450.3249(c) through (m) as Sec. 450.324(d) through (n), respectively,
and add a new paragraph (c). The new provision would require that, if
more
[[Page 41479]]
than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, those MPOs within the
MPA shall (1) jointly develop a single metropolitan transportation plan
for the MPA; (2) jointly establish, for the MPA, the performance
targets that address the performance measures described in 23 CFR part
490 (where applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d); and
(3) agree to a process for making a single conformity determination on
the joint plan (in nonattainment or maintenance areas). The FHWA and
FTA seek comments on what, if any, exemptions ought to be contained in
the rule from these requirements, and what criteria might be used for
such an exemption. The FHWA and FTA also request comments on the
question whether additional changes are needed in FHWA and FTA
regulations on performance measures and target setting (e.g., 23 CFR
part 490) to cross-reference this new planning provision on target-
setting.
Section 450.326--Development and Content of the Transportation
Improvement Program
The proposed rule would add a sentence to Sec. 450.326(a) to
require that in MPAs with multiple MPOs the MPOs must jointly develop a
single TIP for the MPA. The rule would require such MPOs, if in
nonattainment or maintenance areas, to agree on a process for making a
single conformity determination on the joint TIP. The FHWA and FTA seek
comments on what, if any, exemptions ought to be contained in the rule
from these requirements, and what criteria might be used for such an
exemption.
The proposed rule would change ``MPO'' to ``MPO(s)'' in paragraphs
(a), (b), (j), and (p). Those changes would be made for better
consistency with other changes proposed in the rulemaking.
Section 450.328--TIP Revisions and Relationship to the STIP
The proposed rule would change ``MPO'' to ``MPO(s)'' in Sec.
450.328(a), (b), and (c). The changes would be made for better
consistency with other changes proposed in the rule.
Section 450.330--TIP Action by the FHWA and the FTA
The proposed rule would change ``MPO'' to ``MPO(s)'' in Sec.
450.330(a) and (c). Section 450.330(c) would be clarified by changing
the first part of the first sentence from ``[i]f an MPO has not . .
.'', to ``[i]f an MPO or MPOs have not . . .'' All these changes are
for better consistency with proposed revisions in other parts of the
rule concerning how planning requirements apply where there are
multiple MPOs in an MPA provisions, as authorized by the exception
provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7).
Section 450.332--Project Selection From the TIP
The proposed rule would change ``MPO'' to ``MPO(s)'' in Sec.
450.332(b) and (c), for better consistency with other changes proposed
in the rule.
Section 450.334--Annual Listing of Obligated Projects
The proposed rule would change ``MPO'' to ``MPO(s)'' in Sec.
450.334(a), for better consistency with other changes proposed in the
rulemaking.
Section 450.336--Self-Certifications and Federal Certifications
The proposed rule would change ``MPO'' to ``MPO(s)'' in several
places in Sec. 450.336(b), for better consistency with other changes
proposed in the rule.
Section 450.340--Phase-In of New Requirements
The proposed rule would add phase-in implementing provisions to
Sec. 450.340 for certain parts of the proposed rule. The compliance
date for all other proposed changes would be the effective date of the
final rule.
In a new paragraph (h), FHWA and FTA propose giving States and MPOs
2 years before they would have to be fully compliant with the MPA
boundary and MPO boundaries agreement provisions in Sec. Sec. 450.310
and 450.312, and with the requirements for jointly established
performance targets and a single metropolitan transportation plan and
TIP for the entire MPA. The proposed rule would require the Governor
and MPOs to document their determination of whether the size and
complexity of the MPA justify the designation of multiple MPOs,
however, the decision would not be subject to approval by FHWA and FTA.
Full compliance for all MPOs within the MPA would be required before
the earliest next regularly scheduled update of a metropolitan
transportation plan for any MPO within the MPA, following the second
anniversary of the effective date of a final rule, if adopted. The FHWA
and FTA seek comment on the appropriateness of the proposed 2-year
phase-in period.
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and available for
examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after
the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and considered to
the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FHWA and FTA will
also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons
should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule
may be published at any time after close of the comment period and
after FHWA and FTA have had the opportunity to review the comments
submitted.
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA and FTA have determined that this proposed rule is a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures.
This proposed regulation seeks to improve the clarity of the planning
rules by addressing ambiguity in MPO boundaries and responsibilities
and better aligning the regulations with the statute. Additionally, the
MPOs shall establish procedures for joint decisionmaking as well as a
process for resolving disagreements. These changes are also intended to
result in better outcomes for the MPOs, State agencies, providers of
public transportation and the public, by restoring a regional focus for
metropolitan planning, and by unifying MPO processes within an
urbanized area in order to improve the ability of the public to
understand and participate in the transportation planning process. The
joint planning requirements of this rule affect primarily urbanized
areas with multiple MPOs planning for the same area, or 142 of the 409
MPOs in the country. The affected MPOs are: (1) MPOs that have been
designated for an urbanized area for which other MPOs also have been
designated and/or (2) MPOs where an adjacent urbanized area has spread
into its MPA boundary. The MPOs designated as an MPO in multiple MPAs,
in which one or more other MPOs are also designated, would be required
to participate in the planning processes for each MPA. Thus, under this
rule, MPOs that have jurisdiction in more than one MPA would be
required to participate in multiple separate planning processes.
However, the affected MPOs could exercise several options to reduce or
eliminate these impacts, including adjustment of MPA boundaries to
eliminate overlap and by merging MPOs. The FHWA and FTA are seeking
comments on what other
[[Page 41480]]
options affected MPOs could exercise to reduce the overlap while
meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements. The FHWA and FTA
expect that such responses will reduce the number of MPOs ultimately
affected by these coordination requirements.
All MPOs will be required to review their agreements with State
DOTs and providers of public transportation to ensure that there are
written procedures for joint decisionmaking and dispute resolution. The
FHWA and FTA expect that the MPOs, State DOTs and providers of public
transportation will undertake this review and update as they identify
how they will implement a performance based planning and programming
process required by MAP-21 and revised Statewide and Nonmetropolitan
Transportation and Metropolitan Transportation Final Rule (FHWA RIN:
2125-AF52; FTA RIN: 2132-AB10). Because FHWA and FTA anticipate that
the reviews would occur due to other existing requirements and in the
absence of the proposed rule, the incremental impact, to the extent
that there is any, should be quite small.
In some cases, a Governor (or Governors in the case of multistate
urbanized areas) and MPOs could determine that the size and complexity
of the area make multiple MPOs appropriate. The proposed rule would
require those multiple separate MPOs to jointly develop unified
planning products: A single metropolitan transportation plan, a single
TIP, and a jointly established set of performance targets for the MPA.
This should not create a large burden, and will in some cases reduce
overall planning costs. Because MPOs within the same urban area will
produce single planning documents, there will be less overlapping and
duplicative work. Thus, the rule will enhance efficiency in planning
processes for some areas, and generate cost-savings due to creating
single rather than multiple documents as well as through pooling of
resources and sharing data, models, and other tools. However, the MPOs
that are not accustomed to coordinating across boundaries will have to
establish relationships and protocols, and reconcile procedures.
Coordination could create some initial costs, but those will diminish
over time. There is also expected to be some offsetting costs for State
DOTs and MPOs due to the necessity of updating metropolitan planning
agreements to include dispute resolution processes. These costs are
expected to be primarily experienced in the initial year, as processes
are developed.
To the extent that there are any costs, 80 percent are directly
reimbursable through Federal transportation funds allocated for
metropolitan planning (23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)) and for
State planning and research (23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5313). Thus,
the costs to the affected MPOs should be minimal.
The FHWA and FTA also expect there will be some cost savings for
State DOTs, which will benefit from having fewer TIPs to incorporate
into their STIPs. There will also be benefits to the public if the
coordination requirements result in a planning process in which public
participation opportunities are transparent and unified for the entire
region, and if members of the public have an easier ability to engage
in the planning process.
The FHWA and FTA seek comments and available data on the costs and
benefits of the proposals of this rulemaking.
In addition, this action complies with the principles of Executive
Order 13563. After evaluating the costs and benefits of these proposed
amendments, the FHWA and FTA anticipate that the net economic impact of
this rulemaking would be minimal. These changes are not anticipated to
adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In
addition, these changes will not create a serious inconsistency with
any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of
any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA and FTA have evaluated the effects of this
action on small entities and have determined that the action would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed amendment addresses the obligation of Federal
funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid highway projects. The proposed rule
affects two types of entities: State governments and MPOs. State
governments do not meet the definition of a small entity under 5 U.S.C.
601, which have a population of less than 50,000.
The MPOs are considered governmental jurisdictions, and to qualify
as a small entity they would need to serve less than 50,000 people. The
MPOs serve urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more.
Therefore, the MPOs that might incur economic impacts under this
proposed rule do not meet the definition of a small entity.
I hereby certify that this regulatory action would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The FHWA and FTA have determined that this NPRM does not impose
unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$155.1 million or more in any one year (when adjusted for inflation) in
2012 dollars for either State, local, and tribal governments in the
aggregate, or by the private sector. The FHWA and FTA will publish a
final analysis, including its response to public comments, when it
publishes a final rule. Additionally, the definition of ``Federal
mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial
assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments
have authority to adjust their participation in the program in
accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government.
The Federal-aid highway program and Federal Transit Act permits this
type of flexibility.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)
The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA
and FTA have determined that this action does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. The FHWA and FTA have also determined that this action does
not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States'
ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
E. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply
to this program. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and
Construction, for further information.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or
[[Page 41481]]
require through regulations. The DOT has analyzed this proposed rule
under the PRA and has determined that this proposal does not contain
collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.
G. National Environmental Policy Act
Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that establish specific
criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: (1)
Those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement, (2) those that normally require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment, and (3) those that are categorically excluded
from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This action qualifies for
categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20) (promulgation of
rules, regulations, and directives) and 771.117(c)(1) (activities that
do not lead directly to construction) for FHWA, and 23 CFR
771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities which do not
involve or lead directly to construction) for FTA. The FHWA and FTA
have evaluated whether the action would involve unusual or
extraordinary circumstances and have determined that this action would
not.
H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive
Order (E.O.) 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The FHWA and FTA do not
anticipate that this proposed action would affect a taking of private
property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630.
I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA and
FTA certify that this action would not cause an environmental risk to
health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.
K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this action under E.O. 13175, dated
November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action would not have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking
addresses obligations of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid
highway projects and would not impose any direct compliance
requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required.
L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this action under E.O. 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA and FTA have determined that this is not
a significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
M. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
The E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) and DOT Order
5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534, May 10, 2012) (available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/index.cfm) require DOT agencies to achieve Environmental
Justice (EJ) as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic
effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations. The DOT agencies must address compliance with
E.O. 12898 and the DOT Order in all rulemaking activities.
The FHWA and FTA have issued additional documents relating to
administration of E.O. 12898 and the DOT Order. On June 14, 2012, FHWA
issued an update to its EJ order, FHWA Order 6640.23A (FHWA Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations (available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/664023a.htm)). On August 15, 2012, FTA's Circular
4703.1 became effective, which contains guidance for States and MPOs to
incorporate EJ into their planning processes (available online at
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_EJ_Circular_7.14-12_FINAL.pdf).
The FHWA and FTA have evaluated the final rule under the Executive
order, the DOT Order, the FHWA Order, and the FTA Circular. The EJ
principles, in the context of planning, should be considered when the
planning process is being implemented at the State and local level. As
part of their stewardship and oversight of the federally aided
transportation planning process of the States, MPOs and operators of
public transportation, FHWA and FTA encourage these entities to
incorporate EJ principles into the statewide and metropolitan planning
processes and documents, as appropriate and consistent with the
applicable orders and the FTA Circular. When FHWA and FTA make a future
funding or other approval decision on a project basis, they consider
EJ.
Nothing inherent in the proposed rule would disproportionately
impact minority or low-income populations. The proposed rule
establishes procedures and other requirements to guide future State and
local decisionmaking on programs and projects. Neither the proposed
rule nor 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 dictate the outcome of those decisions.
The FHWA and FTA have determined that the proposed rule would not cause
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations.
N. Regulation Identifier Number
A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
23 CFR Part 450
Grant programs--transportation, Highway and roads, Mass
transportation, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 613
Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Mass
transportation.
[[Page 41482]]
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.85.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Carolyn Flowers,
Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA and FTA propose to amend
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 450, and title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, part 613, as set forth below:
Title 23--Highways
PART 450--PLANNING ASSISTANCE AND STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 450 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49
U.S.C. 5303 and 5304; 49 CFR 1.85 and 1.90.
0
2. Amend Sec. 450.104 by revising the definitions for ``Metropolitan
planning agreement'', ``Metropolitan planning area (MPA)'',
``Metropolitan transportation plan'', and ``Transportation improvement
program (TIP)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 450.104 Definitions.
* * * * *
Metropolitan planning agreement means a written agreement between
the MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of public transportation
serving the metropolitan planning area that describes how they will
work cooperatively to meet their mutual responsibilities in carrying
out the metropolitan transportation planning process.
Metropolitan planning area (MPA) means the geographic area
determined by agreement between the MPO(s) for the area and the
Governor, which must at a minimum include the entire urbanized area and
the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year
forecast period for the transportation plan, and may include additional
areas.
* * * * *
Metropolitan transportation plan means the official multimodal
transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon,
that is developed, adopted, and updated by the MPO or MPOs through the
metropolitan transportation planning process for the MPA.
* * * * *
Transportation improvement program (TIP) means a prioritized
listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of 4 years
that is developed and formally adopted by an MPO or MPOs as part of the
metropolitan transportation planning process for the MPA, consistent
with the metropolitan transportation plan, and required for projects to
be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C.
chapter 53.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 450.208 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 450.208 Coordination of planning process activities.
(a) * * *
(1) Coordinate planning carried out under this subpart with the
metropolitan transportation planning activities carried out under
subpart C of this part for metropolitan areas of the State. When
carrying out transportation planning activities under this part, the
State and MPOs shall coordinate on information, studies, or analyses
for portions of the transportation system located in metropolitan
planning areas. The State(s), the MPO(s) and the operators of public
transportation must have a current metropolitan planning agreement,
which will identify coordination strategies that support cooperative
decisionmaking and the resolution of disagreements;
* * * * *
Sec. 450.218 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 450.218(b) by removing ``MPO'' and adding in its place
``MPO(s)'' in both places it appears.
0
5. Amend Sec. 450.226 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 450.226 Phase-in of new requirements.
* * * * *
(g) On and after [date 2 years after publication of the final
rule], the State(s), the MPO(s) and the operators of public
transportation must have a current metropolitan planning agreement,
which will identify coordination strategies that support cooperative
decision-making and the resolution of disagreements.
Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming
0
6. Amend Sec. 450.300 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and
0
b. Removing from paragraph (b) the word ``Encourages'' and adding in
its place ``Encourage''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 450.300 Purpose.
* * * * *
(a) Set forth the national policy that the MPO designated for each
urbanized area is to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive performance-based multimodal transportation planning
process for its MPA, including the development of a metropolitan
transportation plan and a TIP, that encourages and promotes the safe
and efficient development, management, and operation of surface
transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people and
freight (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle
transportation facilities) and foster economic growth and development,
while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air
pollution; and
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 450.306 by adding paragraph (d)(5) and revising
paragraph (i) as follows:
Sec. 450.306 Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning
process.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) In MPAs in which multiple MPOs have been designated, the MPOs
shall jointly establish, for the MPA, the performance targets that
address performance measures or standards established under 23 CFR part
490 (where applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
* * * * *
(i) In an urbanized area not designated as a TMA that is an air
quality attainment area, the MPO(s) may propose and submit to the FHWA
and the FTA for approval a procedure for developing an abbreviated
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP. In developing proposed
simplified planning procedures, consideration shall be given to whether
the abbreviated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP will achieve
the purposes of 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and these regulations,
taking into account the complexity of the transportation problems in
the area. The MPO(s) shall develop simplified procedures in cooperation
with the State(s) and public transportation operator(s).
0
8. Amend Sec. 450.310 by revising paragraphs (e) and (m) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 450.310 Metropolitan planning organization designation and
redesignation.
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in this paragraph, only one MPO shall be
designated for each MPA. More than one MPO may be designated to serve
an MPA only if the Governor(s) and the existing MPO(s), if applicable,
determine that the size and complexity of the MPA make designation of
more than one MPO in the MPA appropriate.
[[Page 41483]]
In those cases where the Governor(s) and existing MPO(s) determine that
the size and complexity of the MPA do make it appropriate that two or
more MPOs serve within the same MPA, the Governor and affected MPOs by
agreement shall jointly establish or adjust the boundaries for each MPO
within the MPA, and the MPOs shall establish official, written
agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination, the division of
transportation planning responsibilities within the MPA among and
between the MPOs, and procedures for joint decisionmaking and the
resolution of disagreements. If multiple MPOs were designated in a
single MPA prior to this rule or in multiple MPAs that merged into a
single MPA following a Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census,
and the Governor(s) and the existing MPOs determine that the size and
complexity do not make the designation of more than one MPO in the MPA
appropriate, then those MPOs must merge together in accordance with the
redesignation procedures in this section.
* * * * *
(m) Each Governor with responsibility for a portion of a multistate
metropolitan area and the appropriate MPOs shall, to the extent
practicable, provide coordinated transportation planning for the entire
metropolitan area. The consent of Congress is granted to any two or
more States to:
* * * * *
0
9. Section 450.312 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 450.312 Metropolitan planning area boundaries.
(a) At a minimum, the boundaries of an MPA shall encompass the
entire existing urbanized area (as defined by the Bureau of the Census)
plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year
forecast period for the metropolitan transportation plan.
(1) Subject to this minimum requirement, the boundaries of an MPA
shall be determined through an agreement between the MPO and the
Governor.
(2) If two or more MPAs would otherwise include the same non-
urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year
forecast period, the Governor and the relevant MPOs are required to
agree on the final boundaries of the MPA or MPAs such that the
boundaries of the MPAs do not overlap. In such situations, the Governor
and MPOs are encouraged, but not required, to combine the MPAs into a
single MPA. Merger into a single MPA would also require the MPOs to
merge in accordance with the redesignation procedures described in
Sec. 450.310(h), unless the Governor and MPO(s) determine that the
size and complexity of the MPA make multiple MPOs appropriate, as
described in Sec. 450.310(e).
(3) The MPA boundaries may be further expanded to encompass the
entire metropolitan statistical area or combined statistical area, as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget.
(b) The MPA boundaries that existed on August 10, 2005 shall be
retained for an urbanized area designated as a nonattainment area for
ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) as of August 10, 2005. Such MPA boundaries may only be adjusted
by agreement of the Governor and the affected MPO(s) in accordance with
the redesignation procedures described in Sec. 450.310(h). The
boundaries for an MPA that includes an urbanized area designated as a
nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) after August 10, 2005, may be established to
coincide with the designated boundaries of the ozone and/or carbon
monoxide nonattainment area, in accordance with the requirements in
Sec. 450.310(b).
(c) An MPA boundary may encompass more than one urbanized area, but
each urbanized area must be included in its entirety.
(d) MPA boundaries may be established to coincide with the
geography of regional economic development and growth forecasting
areas.
(e) Identification of new urbanized areas within an existing
metropolitan planning area by the Bureau of the Census shall not
require redesignation of the existing MPO.
(f) In multistate metropolitan areas, the Governors with
responsibility for a portion of the multistate metropolitan area, the
appropriate MPO(s), and the public transportation operator(s) are
strongly encouraged to coordinate transportation planning for the
entire multistate metropolitan area. States involved in such multistate
transportation planning may:
(1) Enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law
of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in
support of activities authorized under this section as the activities
pertain to interstate areas and localities within the States; and
(2) Establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as the States may
determine desirable for making the agreements and compacts effective.
(g) The MPA boundaries shall not overlap with each other.
(h) Where the Governor and MPO(s) have determined that the size and
complexity of the MPA make it appropriate to have more than one MPO
designated for an MPA, the MPOs within the same MPA shall, at a
minimum:
(1) Establish written agreements that clearly identify coordination
processes, the division of transportation planning responsibilities
among and between the MPOs, and procedures for joint decisionmaking and
the resolution of disagreements;
(2) Through a joint decisionmaking process, develop a single TIP
and a single metropolitan transportation plan for the entire MPA;
(3) Establish the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA, by
agreement among all affected MPOs and the Governor.
(i) The MPO(s) (in cooperation with the State and public
transportation operator(s)) shall review the MPA boundaries after each
Census to determine if existing MPA boundaries meet the minimum
statutory requirements for new and updated urbanized area(s), and shall
adjust them as necessary in order to encompass the entire existing
urbanized area(s) plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized
within the 20-year forecast period of the metropolitan transportation
plan. If after a Census, two previously separate urbanized areas are
defined as a single urbanized area, not later than 180 days after the
release of the U.S. Bureau of the Census notice of the Qualifying Urban
Areas for a decennial census, the Governor and MPO(s) shall redetermine
the affected MPAs as a single MPA that includes the entire new
urbanized area plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized
within the 20-year forecast period of the metropolitan transportation
plan. As appropriate, additional adjustments should be made to reflect
the most comprehensive boundary to foster an effective planning process
that ensures connectivity between modes, improves access to modal
systems, and promotes efficient overall transportation investment
strategies. If more than one MPO is designated for urbanized areas that
are merged following a Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census,
the State and the MPOs shall comply with the MPA boundary and MPO
boundaries agreement provisions in Sec. Sec. 450.310 and 450.312, and
shall determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA
[[Page 41484]]
make it appropriate for there to be more than one MPO designated within
the MPA. If the size and complexity of the MPA do not make it
appropriate to have multiple MPOs, the MPOs shall merge, in accordance
with the redesignation procedures in Sec. 450.310(h). If the size and
complexity do warrant the designation of multiple MPOs within the MPA,
the MPOs shall comply with the requirements for jointly established
performance targets, and a single metropolitan transportation plan and
TIP for the entire MPA, before the next metropolitan transportation
plan update that occurs on or after two years after the release of the
Qualifying Urban Areas for the Decennial Census by the Bureau of the
Census, or within 4 years of the designation of the new UZA boundary,
whichever occurs first.
(j) The Governor and MPOs are encouraged to consider merging
multiple MPAs into a single MPA when:
(1) Two or more urbanized areas are adjacent to each other;
(2) Two or more urbanized areas are expected to expand and become
adjacent within a 20 year forecast period; or
(3) Two or more neighboring MPAs would otherwise both include the
same non-urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a
20-year forecast period.
(k) Following MPA boundary approval by the MPO(s) and the Governor,
the MPA boundary descriptions shall be provided for informational
purposes to the FHWA and the FTA. The MPA boundary descriptions shall
be submitted either as a geo-spatial database or described in
sufficient detail to enable the boundaries to be accurately delineated
on a map.
0
10. Section 450.314 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 450.314 Metropolitan planning agreements.
(a) The MPO, the State(s), and the providers of public
transportation shall cooperatively determine their mutual
responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation
planning process. These responsibilities shall be clearly identified in
written agreements among the MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of
public transportation serving the MPA. To the extent possible, a single
agreement between all responsible parties should be developed. The
written agreement(s) shall include specific provisions for the
development of financial plans that support the metropolitan
transportation plan (see Sec. 450.324) and the metropolitan TIP (see
Sec. 450.326), and development of the annual listing of obligated
projects (see Sec. 450.334).
(b) The MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of public
transportation should periodically review and update the agreement, as
appropriate, to reflect effective changes.
(c) If the MPA does not include the entire nonattainment or
maintenance area, there shall be a written agreement among the State
department of transportation, State air quality agency, affected local
agencies, and the MPO(s) describing the process for cooperative
planning and analysis of all projects outside the MPA within the
nonattainment or maintenance area. The agreement must also indicate how
the total transportation-related emissions for the nonattainment or
maintenance area, including areas outside the MPA, will be treated for
the purposes of determining conformity in accordance with the EPA's
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). The
agreement shall address policy mechanisms for resolving conflicts
concerning transportation-related emissions that may arise between the
MPA and the portion of the nonattainment or maintenance area outside
the MPA.
(d) In nonattainment or maintenance areas, if the MPO is not the
designated agency for air quality planning under section 174 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), there shall be a written agreement
between the MPO and the designated air quality planning agency
describing their respective roles and responsibilities for air quality
related transportation planning.
(e) If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, there
shall be a written agreement among the MPOs, the State(s), and the
public transportation operator(s) describing how the metropolitan
transportation planning processes will be coordinated to assure the
development of a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for
the MPA. In cases in which a proposed transportation investment extends
across the boundaries of more than one MPA, the MPOs shall coordinate
to assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation
plans and TIPs. If any part of the urbanized area is a nonattainment or
maintenance area, the agreement also shall include State and local air
quality agencies. If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an
MPA, the metropolitan transportation planning processes for affected
MPOs must reflect coordinated data collection, analysis, and planning
assumptions across the MPA. Coordination of data collection, analysis,
and planning assumptions is also strongly encouraged for neighboring
MPOs that are not within the same MPA. Coordination efforts and
outcomes shall be documented in subsequent transmittals of the UPWP and
other planning products, including the metropolitan transportation plan
and TIP, to the State(s), the FHWA, and the FTA.
(f) Where the boundaries of the MPA extend across two or more
States, the Governors with responsibility for a portion of the
multistate MPA, the appropriate MPO(s), and the public transportation
operator(s) shall coordinate transportation planning for the entire
multistate MPA, including jointly developing planning products for the
MPA. States involved in such multistate transportation planning may:
(1) Enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law
of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in
support of activities authorized under this section as the activities
pertain to interstate areas and localities within the States; and
(2) Establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as the States may
determine desirable for making the agreements and compacts effective.
(g) If an MPA includes an urbanized area that has been designated
as a TMA in addition to an urbanized area that is not designated as a
TMA, the non-TMA urbanized area shall not be treated as a TMA. However,
if more than one MPO serves the MPA, a written agreement shall be
established between the MPOs within the MPA boundaries, which clearly
identifies the roles and responsibilities of each MPO in meeting
specific TMA requirements (e.g., congestion management process, Surface
Transportation Program funds suballocated to the urbanized area over
200,000 population, and project selection).
(h) The MPO(s), State(s), and the providers of public
transportation shall jointly agree upon and develop specific written
provisions for cooperatively developing and sharing information related
to transportation performance data, the selection of performance
targets, the reporting of performance targets, the reporting of
performance to be used in tracking progress toward attainment of
critical outcomes for the region of the MPO (see Sec. 450.306(d)), and
the collection of data for the asset management plans for the NHS for
each of the following circumstances: When one MPO serves an urbanized
area, when more than one MPO serves an urbanized area, and when an MPA
includes an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA as well as
an
[[Page 41485]]
urbanized area that is not a TMA. These provisions shall be documented
either as part of the metropolitan planning agreements required under
paragraphs (a), (e), and (g) of this section, or documented it in some
other means outside of the metropolitan planning agreements as
determined cooperatively by the MPO(s), State(s), and providers of
public transportation.
Sec. 450.316 [Amended]
0
11. Amend Sec. 450.316(b), (c), and (d) by removing ``MPO'' and adding
in its place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
0
12. Amend Sec. 450.324 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a) replace ``MPO'' with ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs;
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c) through (m) as paragraphs (d) through
(n), respectively;
0
c. Add new paragraph (c); and
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g)(10),
(g)(11)(iv), (h), (k), (l), and (n), remove ``MPO'' with and add in its
place``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 450.324 Development and content of the transportation
improvement program (TIP).
* * * * *
(c) If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, those
MPOs within the MPA shall:
(1) Jointly develop a single metropolitan transportation plan for
the MPA;
(2) Jointly establish, for the MPA, the performance targets that
address the performance measures described in 23 CFR part 490 (where
applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d); and
(3) Agree to a process for making a single conformity determination
on the joint plan (in nonattainment or maintenance areas).
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 450.326 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a); and
0
b. In paragraphs (b), (j), and (p) remove ``MPO'' and add in its place
``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 450.326 Development and content of the transportation
improvement program (TIP).
(a) The MPO, in cooperation with the State(s) and any affected
public transportation operator(s), shall develop a TIP for the
metropolitan planning area. If more than one MPO has been designated to
serve an MPA, those MPOs within the MPA shall jointly develop a single
TIP for the MPA and shall agree to a process for making a single
conformity determination on the joint TIP (in nonattainment or
maintenance areas). The TIP shall reflect the investment priorities
established in the current metropolitan transportation plan and shall
cover a period of no less than 4 years, be updated at least every 4
years, and be approved by the MPO(s) and the Governor. However, if the
TIP covers more than 4 years, the FHWA and the FTA will consider the
projects in the additional years as informational. The MPO(s) may
update the TIP more frequently, but the cycle for updating the TIP must
be compatible with the STIP development and approval process. The TIP
expires when the FHWA/FTA approval of the STIP expires. Copies of any
updated or revised TIPs must be provided to the FHWA and the FTA. In
nonattainment and maintenance areas subject to transportation
conformity requirements, the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the MPO, must
make a conformity determination on any updated or amended TIP, in
accordance with the Clean Air Act requirements and the EPA's
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A).
* * * * *
Sec. 450.328 [Amended]
0
14. Amend Sec. 450.328(a), (b), and (c) by removing ``MPO'' and adding
in its place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
Sec. 450.330 [Amended]
0
15. Amend Sec. 450.330 (a) and (c) by removing ``MPO'' and adding in
its place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
Sec. 450.332 [Amended]
0
16. Amend Sec. 450.332(b) and (c) by removing ``MPO'' and adding in
its place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
Sec. 450.334 [Amended]
0
17. Amend Sec. 450.334(a) by removing ``MPO'' and adding in its place
``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
Sec. 450.336 [Amended]
0
18. Amend Sec. 450.336(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2) by removing
``MPO'' and adding in its place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
0
19. Amend Sec. 450.340 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a) adding ``or MPOs'' after ``MPO'' wherever it
occurs;
0
b. Adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 450.340 Phase-in of new requirements.
* * * * *
(h) States and MPOs shall comply with the MPA boundary and MPO
boundaries agreement provisions in 450.310 and 450.312, shall document
the determination of the Governor and MPO(s) whether the size and
complexity of the MPA make multiple MPOs appropriate, and the MPOs
shall comply with the requirements for jointly established performance
targets, and a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the
entire MPA, before the next metropolitan transportation plan update
that occurs on or after [date 2 years after the effective date of the
final rule].
Title 49--Transportation
PART 613--METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE AND NONMETROPOLITAN PLANNING
0
20. The authority citation for part 613 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 217(g); 42 U.S.C. 3334,
4233, 4332, 7410 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306, 5323(k); and 49 CFR
1.51(f) and 21.7(a).
[FR Doc. 2016-14854 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P